Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o 'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 9 February.

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

Government Expenditure

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the amount of identifiable Government expenditure per head for each of the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Identifiable Government expenditure per head in 1993–94 was £3,458 in England, £3,913 in Wales, £4,185 in Scotland and £4,781 in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: Although we English are happy, in present circumstances, to support the Scots—indeed, I even married one—does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the substantial subsidy for the Scots and others might be different if there were a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland? Does he agree that the Scots may face the double jeopardy of a Scottish tax from Edinburgh and reluctance from London to pay the present 20 per cent, subsidy to Scotland?

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, Scotland receives a considerable subsidy from England, but that is based on the Government's judgment of needs in the various countries, and we judge that to be the correct level of spending. My hon. Friend is certainly right that it is proposed that the Scots should have a Parliament with the ability to raise 3p in the £1 on income tax. Why one should be taxed more heavily for working in Scotland than for working in England, I am not sure; nor am I sure what advantage it would bring to the Scots. The English

taxpayer might ask why, if the Scots have 3p in the £1 to spare, he should continue to shift so much money north of the border.

Dr. Bray: Do those figures include mortgage interest relief, defence procurement expenditure, transport subsidies and similar matters that are directly budgeted for as Government expenditure?

Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is identifiable Government expenditure, but the aspects of expenditure that he describes are all for the benefit of the United Kingdom. We are talking about identifiable Government expenditure on public services. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the warning from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers): that there is a risk that the Scots will have an extra 3p increase on their income tax, which would have a very damaging effect on living standards for the average inhabitant of Scotland.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider updating the Welsh and Scottish budgets that were published in the early 1970s, which gave attributable revenue as well as expenditure in Scotland and Wales and which showed clearly, irrespective of any additional taxation that might be imposed by a Scottish or Welsh assembly, an adverse balance in expenditure?

Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly consider the possibility of doing so. As my right hon. Friend says, there is an adverse balance. Scotland receives more by way of expenditure than it pays in taxation, but that is entirely right if a United Kingdom Government and a United Kingdom Parliament decide that it reflects the needs of the population in certain areas. I cannot understand why it is proposed by some that if one works in Scotland one should pay 3p in the £1 more in income tax than if one does the same job in England. I can only imagine that that is likely to be damaging to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Chancellor remind the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) that the big difference between 1971 and now is that we are members of the European Union and that there have been great changes? As someone who favours European integration, he will know that the small nations and regions of Europe that have developed in the past 20 years have been those such as Catalonia, which is now seen as one of the driving forces of changing performances in Europe. Why does he not recognise that the people of Wales and Scotland should be given the same opportunity for the same constitutional arrangements as every other small nation and region in Europe?

Mr. Clarke: When I attend the Council of Ministers in Europe, I do not sit down with representatives of Catalonia, Galicia and so on, whose people have an identifiable local nationality but are represented by the Spanish Government. The four countries that comprise the United Kingdom have a more powerful voice in Europe because they are members of the United Kingdom. It would be a mistake for any part of the United Kingdom to start equating itself with Catalonia and thinking that we would be able to play the same part in European politics as we do at the moment—or as we could at the moment.

Mr. Jenkin: Are not the major transfers between the different regions of the United Kingdom necessary to


maintain the economic cohesion of the United Kingdom under the single currency of the United Kingdom, the pound sterling? Would not, equally, huge transfers be required to maintain a single currency across the European Union? Does not that vindicate the Government's scepticism about a single currency?

Mr. Clarke: We opted to have a straightforward choice on a single currency, which we shall exercise if and when the proposal is put to us. Meanwhile, it makes obvious sense to take part in the preparations for economic and monetary union so that we can make a better informed choice when we have a sensible debate on it. It is not inextricably linked to political union. I recall that political union between Scotland and England occurred many years before monetary union. Rather than relating it to Scotland, we should consider the case for and against economic and monetary union on its merits.

Home Owners (Benefit Entitlement)

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact that the restriction of benefit entitlement on home owners who become unemployed will have on the housing market.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): The growth of private insurance should reduce repossessions and improve the stability of home ownership. At present, two thirds of home owners would not qualify for help if they lost their jobs and many of the remaining third would be disqualified by receiving redundancy pay or an early retirement package. Our proposals aim to encourage home owners to insure against those risks.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister not realise that the folly of his Department in cutting support for home owners will lead to mortgage lenders seeking more repossessions and to more homeless people? Whatever happened to the Tory promise of creating a property-owning democracy?

Sir George Young: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. As he knows, repossessions have already fallen by some 36 per cent, and we hope that that trend will continue. It makes sense to try to remove an obligation of about £1 billion on the social security budget and reposition it through the insurance market on those who benefit—home owners. That will lead to a more stable system, which will cover more people than the current system.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that about 40 per cent, of borrowers take out insurance and that, traditionally, it was always accepted that any borrower should? Will he please encourage the other 60 per cent, of borrowers to do the same?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The 40 per cent, of new borrowers are paying not only for themselves, but, through the taxation system, for the other 60 per cent. It would be fairer if we moved from a taxpayers' subsidy to an insurance-based system.

Ms Primarolo: Why should someone who loses their job face losing their home too because of the Government's planned changes to the benefits system? Will not the £18 million saved by the Government in the first year increase the mortgage payments of every new

home owner by £20 per month? Since mortgages are already rising, why do not the Government withdraw that proposal and help home owners, not undermine them?

Sir George Young: The figure of £20 per month, to which the hon. Lady referred, or the figure of £12 to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security referred in last week's debate, must be put in the context of a reduction of £140 per month in the cost of an average mortgage since 1990. Against that background, the figure mentioned is not a high imposition.

Mr. David Martin: Does it not stick in my right hon. Friend's craw, as it does in mine, that Labour Members have been posing as the champions of home owners, when all their policies, in and out of government, have been not only discouraging but positively hostile to the interests of home owners?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Labour Members felt so strongly about these measures, they would have given an obligation to repeal them, but of course they have not done so.

Disabled People (Access)

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the introduction of tax relief to small businesses for the purposes of providing access for disabled people.

Sir George Young: Capital expenditure incurred by businesses for providing access for disabled people may be eligible for tax relief under normal capital allowance rules. There are specific Government programmes to assist disabled people such as the access to work programme, which was introduced in June 1994. This provides a wide range of practical help to overcome barriers to employment faced by disabled people. For example, the programme can provide alterations to premises or a work environment and communicators for people who are deaf. By December 1994, more than 5,000 people had been assisted.

Mr. Barnes: The Minister should realise that civil rights for disabled people are good for business: they increase sales and the tax take and they reduce the need for benefits. Therefore, can further measures be taken to encourage some entrepreneurial zip among small businesses so that more disabled people can be taken on by them?

Sir George Young: The whole House has much sympathy with the objectives suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The Disability Discrimination Bill, which is now before the House, requires an employer to make a reasonable adjustment to the working conditions or premises where that could overcome a practical barrier to a disabled potential employee.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to achieve that entrepreneurial zip, capital will need to be expended? If the Government are going to say exactly how that capital should be spent, they should carefully consider tax benefits for those who are willing to spend it.

Sir George Young: Depending on the nature of the expenditure, if it is revenue expenditure, it can all be set


against tax. Depending on the nature of the capital expenditure, there may be allowances for that also. In addition, grants are available under the access to work scheme, through the disabled person, to pay for some of the adaptations.

Ms Armstrong: Are not the tax issues with which the Minister is dealing currently dealt with by Inland Revenue tax inspectors? It is estimated that more than £2 billion of tax is not being collected, so how does the Minister justify sacking 6,000 tax inspectors? Would it not be better to have tax collectors collecting tax and not the dole?

Sir George Young: No one is suggesting that 6,000 tax inspectors are going to be sacked. We have made it quite clear that we hope to achieve our proposed reductions without compulsory redundancies. In the past three years, the number of Inland Revenue staff has reduced by 10,000, with only 80 redundancies. That is the progress that we want to make.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the entrepreneurial zip would be taken out of small businesses if local councils were again given the right to charge the business rate, as proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. The uniform business rate, set by Government with guarantees that it will not rise by more than the rate of inflation, is a real benefit to small businesses, particularly to those that were previously confronted with large rate increases by Labour-controlled local authorities.

Living Standards

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on prospects for living standards in the coming year.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: One possible measure of living standards is real GDP per head. On that basis, my Budget forecast implied a rise of about 3 per cent, over the coming year.

Mr. Heppell: If housing costs are taken into consideration, the real income of the poorest 10 per cent, of the population has fallen 17 per cent, since 1979, whereas the income of the richest 10 per cent, has increased by 62 per cent. What does the Chancellor propose to do about the growing gap between rich and poor, which is the largest gap since records began?

Mr. Clarke: The figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted are the most misused figures in public debate. Close analysis of figures on the so-called lower 10 per cent, shows that they are not the poorest in society and that they include many people who declare no income but who are high spenders. The comparison that the hon. Gentleman makes is, with the greatest respect, practically valueless.
Next year, as a result of strong and sustained growth and our powerful performance in export markets, we expect average personal disposable incomes per family to rise by about £5. Low-earning families will benefit in particular from what I announced on family credit, which is now being taken up. The welcome fall in unemployment, which is half a million below its peak already, will also benefit less well-off people. The figures

quoted by the hon. Gentleman are misleading, and the present position is encouraging for people on all levels of income.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact mat since 1979 living standards under this Conservative Government have risen right across the board, will my right hon. and learned Friend have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on the possibility of itemising the compensation for VAT on fuel on the pension book, so that pensioners may fully understand the help that the Government have given?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right. Living standards generally are almost half as high again as they were when the Government first came to power. His suggestion about itemising the compensation received inside the pension book is interesting and worth while, and my right hon. Friend may consider it.
It is certain that the amounts added to the retirement pension, over and above the ordinary uprating, will more or less compensate the average pensioner for the extra VAT on fuel, which, at the rate at which we have left it, will now be paid only by those of working age who are not receiving means-tested benefits in full.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does not today's interest rate rise represent a double blow to living standards, making an already insecure Britain even more insecure: first, because every time we expand—even out of recession—we cannot sustain that growth, reflecting the underlying economic weaknesses which the Chancellor refuses to address; and, secondly, because with the cost for a typical home owner rising by £800 this year—a 25 per cent, rise—millions of people will see a fall in their living standards? Are not the Government guilty of a betrayal of their promises to every home owner in Britain, just as they are guilty of a betrayal of their promises to every taxpayer in Britain?

Mr. Clarke: Last year, we had 4 per cent, growth and the lowest inflation since the war, which had beneficial effects on the economy and greatly reduced unemployment by half a million. The key thing, delivery of which would be beyond the hon. Gentleman and his party, is to keep the recovery at a sustainable level, to keep inflation down and to keep our competitive position, which is enabling us to do so well in export markets. The hon. Gentleman shows that he has learnt nothing from the history of past Labour Governments, or indeed of any other Government. He would throw it all away, lose our present competitive position, take risks with inflation and put us back in difficulties again.

Growth Prospects

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about future growth prospects for the United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I receive a large number of representations about prospects for the economy.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome this week's survey by chambers of commerce throughout Europe, showing that Britain has the best job prospects of any country in Europe? Does not


that prove the folly of the trade union-sponsored Opposition policies, which call for the implementation of the social charter in this country?

Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree. Last year, we achieved a big fall in unemployment, and the labour force survey showed a big increase in the number of jobs—particularly, I am glad to say, in full-time jobs—in the British economy. We have a far better record than has been achieved anywhere else in the EU. One reason for that is the firm monetary policy and strong fiscal policy of the Government, and a second reason is that we do not put unnecessary burdens and costs such as the social chapter on to employment, and we have no intention of doing so. That would damage our job-creating record.

Mr. Radice: Will the Chancellor tell the House why he has put up interest rates, as he has not said so?

Mr. Clarke: To deliver my stated objective of sustained growth with low inflation. We still have a buoyant economy, and surveys show that price expectations are still there. There has been a big increase in commodity prices, and producer prices are rising a little. I judged it timely to make a further increase today to ensure that growth is sustained without the recurrence of inflation.
I am not sure what the Labour party would do—it seems to say the same old stuff when it comments on the issue—but I strongly suspect that, at a crucial stage of the recovery, it would throw it all away by not taking the necessary steps to protect us against a recurrence of inflation.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. and learned Friend probably knows that I have not been the greatest fan of Treasury forecasting, but will he comment on the forecasts of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who said in the debate on the autumn statement in 1992 that the balance of payments would worsen—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question that addresses ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. Robinson: During consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend's ministerial responsibilities, will he examine the forecasting of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, who said in the 1992 autumn statement debate that the balance of payments would worsen and unemployment would rise and that the economy was generally on a downhill trend?

Mr. Clarke: In carrying out my ministerial responsibilities it is important that I maintain a healthy scepticism for forecasts of all types. I readily acknowledge that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has a history of disastrous forecasts. I forecast that if he were in my position, he would have voted against all my tax increases and public spending controls, he would not have raised interest rates and this country would still be an industrial disaster. He still carps about the remarkable performance that we achieved in 1994 by ignoring his advice and forecasts.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that raising interest rates every six weeks does not constitute an economic strategy? Does he further accept that Britain needs investment? In the light of last week's CBI survey

showing that investment is at an all-time low, does he accept that interest rates are likely further to depress investment in the economy, which will undermine our growth prospects?

Mr. Clarke: I realise that a Liberal Democrat Government would never put up interest rates, but would put them down every now and again. In the real world, however, investment depends on people's confidence that the Government will deliver sustained growth with low inflation. The fact that people are in no doubt about our determination to deliver low inflation will make them confident that they can get the return that they require on investment if they make it now.

Home Ownership

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify those proposals in his latest unified budget which are intended specifically to promote home ownership.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My right hon. and learned Friend's most recent Budget included measures to double grants to help council tenants buy homes and Housing Corporation programmes, worth £208 million, to extend home ownership.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response and I recognise the basic strength of our economy, but does he accept, however, that for many decades it has been Conservative party policy to encourage home ownership? Does he accept that recent Budgets have provided a disincentive to home ownership and that the housebuilding sector of our economy is critical to our economic success, as so many other sectors of manufacturing depend on it? Does he also accept—I say this with some regret—that the latest interest rate rise is thoroughly undesirable and will thoroughly depress the building sector?

Mr. Nelson: Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain firmly committed to home ownership, which, since we took office, has increased by 4.3 million to 15.6 million. On the interest rate increase, there can be no doubt that the health and prospects of the housing and construction markets rely on a period of sustained low inflationary growth. It is my right hon. and learned Friend's judgment that that is most likely to be achieved if we continue to bear down on inflation. We have no interest in setting interest rates higher than is necessary to achieve that objective.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is not one of the great problems with our economy the fact that so much future prosperity is based on property prices?

Mr. Nelson: It is a wholly natural instinct and a desirable objective for many people to build up a financial interest in their home—to be reliant on that asset, to enjoy it and to be responsible for ownership. That is what this party has always supported when in government and we shall continue to do so. The changes introduced in successive Budgets, to mortgage interest relief or other areas, should not damage the long-term prospects for home ownership. The figures demonstrate that that has increased and the prospects for it being maintained lie in a gentle revival of that market, which today's action on interest rates should sustain rather than undermine.

Bank Rates

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next discuss with the Governor of the Bank of England the level of bank rates.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors are taken into account when decisions are made regarding bank rate changes during his discussions with the Bank of England.

Mr. Clarke: I held one of my regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss monetary developments this morning. The factors that I take into account in decisions on monetary policy are set out in the medium-term financial strategy, and the minutes of my monthly meetings are now published.

Mrs. Winterton: In his discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England earlier today, did my right hon. and learned Friend say that moves towards a single currency in Europe are anathema, not least because of our bitter experience of the exchange rate mechanism, when bank rates were at an unsustainable and intolerably high level, afflicting both business and home owners alike?

Mr. Clarke: I will not argue history with my hon. Friend, because inflation and interest rate increases began well before we joined the ERM. While we were in the ERM, we began the steady and sensible process of reducing both interest rates and inflation. I commend to my hon. Friend the speech by the Governor of the Bank of England recently on the subject of economic and monetary union. I have been urging for some time that we have a more sensible debate in this country on whether economic and monetary union might be of advantage to this country. I was delighted that the Governor of the Bank of England decided to participate in that debate. He was good enough to show me a copy of his speech before delivering it. It is excellent and I commend it to all those with a serious interest in the subject.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Chancellor realise that his cosy tête-a-têtes over the past five months with the Governor of the Bank of England have resulted in an increase of £45 a month in the average mortgage? How does he expect the ordinary wage earner—not Sir Iain Vallance or Cedric Brown but the people whom they employ—to pay the extra that he has imposed?

Mr. Clarke: I am sometimes accused of having cosy tête-a-têtes with the Governor of the Bank of England and, at other times, unavailing struggles against him in our titanic clashes. [Interruption.] This country is simply not ready for open government. The minutes of the meetings that we publish show that we are both firmly agreed on delivering sustained growth with low inflation. As a leader in The Times recently acknowledged, by doing that last year we succeeded in producing the strongest economy in Europe and arguably the healthiest economy in the developed world.
Mortgage costs are now far higher—lower— [Interruption.] Mortgage costs are far lower than they were in 1990 when they last reached their peak. If I took the advice of Opposition Members and lost control of inflation, mortgage costs would rise to great heights.

When inflation and taxation are taken into account, the average person's living standards are expected to rise in 1995.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ignore the mindless chants from Opposition Members, whose thinking on interest rates has not advanced from the point of saying that they should be 1 per cent, below whatever level they happen to be? Does he agree that it is in the long-term interest of all borrowers, both corporate and personal, that interest rates increase from time to time, as that helps to achieve the long-term inflation objectives that he has set out?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am afraid that he accurately describes the level of discussion with the Opposition that we usually have on interest rates. The key judgment that must be made is how to sustain this recovery. That involves taking the necessary decisions to ensure that inflation does not get back into the system. Small business men, house purchasers, and people in the real industrial economy, whose interests are at the forefront of my mind, would suffer most if I lost control of inflation at a time when our recovery is doing so well. This recovery will last. We shall not return to boom and bust, and that involves ignoring the flippant advice of the Labour and Liberal parties on how to set interest rates.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Would it be wise Government policy to continue increasing interest rates in advance of a general election?

Mr. Clarke: I have already given one description of the usual political debate on interest rates. I have deliberately made monetary policy more transparent to try to stop interest rates being treated as such a knock-about political subject. People will stop regarding interest rates as a knock-about issue and allowing political considerations to intrude when they see us continuing to deliver the sort of growth rate, falling unemployment, new job creation, high standards of productivity and high export volumes that we have so far delivered. If we keep on delivering those to an election, the views of any of the Opposition parties on interest rates will be regarded as totally irrelevant.

Mr. Elletson: What effect would there be on interest rates if we removed spending controls on local authorities and created a new tier of local bureaucracy with regional councils? Is that not another example of Labour policy that would cost billions of pounds and destroy jobs?

Mr. Clarke: It certainly would. But as my hon. Friend acknowledged in passing, it is only one of many policies to come from the Labour party which would undermine our control of public spending and would lead either to increased taxation—as the Liberals claim—or to increased borrowing, which would have a destructive effect on monetary policy. It is the very combination of sensible control of public spending, tight fiscal policy and a sensible and consistent monetary policy that has created the financial conditions that currently make us one of the wealthiest economies in the industrial world.

Mr. Darling: Can the Chancellor confirm that a typical householder will pay £800 a year more as a result of today's interest rate rises? Is not it true that, because of that, before too long, the Chancellor's political instincts will start to dominate consideration of changes in interest


rates and override the advice from the Governor of the Bank of England in order to placate Conservative Back Benchers?

Mr. Clarke: First, I do not believe that a half per cent. rise could produce an £800 a year difference, as the hon. Gentleman said. Secondly, as far as I am aware, no building society has announced that it is putting up its rates, although it might—I have no control over that. As I have already said, next year, taking account of inflation and taxation, the average family can expect an increase in its personal disposal income and average earnings should rise by about £5 a week. The overall living standards of this country are best protected by sensible economic policies. We can look forward to increasing prosperity and more secure employment for our people as long as we keep on the successful track that we mapped out last year.

EC Convergence Criteria

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Kingdom economy meets the EC convergence criteria; and what is the corresponding position with the performance of other EC partners.

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Ireland and Luxembourg are currently the only countries which are deemed to meet the convergence criteria.

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that there may well be a moment when various national economies are roughly in balance, but that later, they might not be? Does my hon. Friend accept that if, in the meantime, a single currency had been imposed, business risk and differing conditions would merely have shifted to areas other than the exchange rate? What, then, are the Government's divergence criteria?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes the good point that the temporary convergence of the economies of Europe would not provide good conditions for a single currency because subsequent divergence of economic performances by the national economies of Europe would create intolerable strains within that single currency area. That is one of the reasons why the Government believe that the timetable for monetary union laid down in the Maastricht treaty is unrealistic. That is also why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured that the protocol to the treaty requires a subsequent Act of Parliament and the consent of the House before the United Kingdom moves in that direction.

Mr. Andrew Smith: In the light of the answer just given, and now that the Secretary of State for Employment speaks for the Government in Davos and elsewhere on such matters and the civil war in the Conservative party is so damaging to this country that the Chancellor chose to come to the Dispatch Box earlier and refer, not to the role that this country is playing in Europe, but to the role that this country "could" play in Europe— the Chancellor's word—have the Government ruled out the United Kingdom participating in economic and monetary union by the 1999 deadline in the Maastricht treaty—yes or no?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We play a full and constructive role in Europe, but that does not mean that

we are required to sign up to a single currency now, as the Opposition parties would. We are quite content to leave that final decision to a future Parliament. I cannot help but observe that the Opposition parties which are most keen on a single currency are the most unlikely ever to deliver the economic criteria which would make that possible.

Manufacturing Industry (Investment)

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss investment in manufacturing industry.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor regularly meets the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the prospects for inflation and the current state of the economy, including developments in manufacturing investment.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Chief Secretary aware that business investment is forecast to grow by a staggering 11 per cent. this year? Is not that a complete vindication of the Government's economic policies? Is he further aware that throughout the past year the Labour party have consistently attacked the Government about the lack of investment in manufacturing industry? In light of those figures, should not the shadow Chancellor eat his words, admit that he was wrong and congratulate the Government?

Mr. Aitken: I would certainly share my hon. Friend's relish in seeing the shadow Chancellor eat his words, but the meal would be so gargantuan that I do not think that it is a very likely outcome.
My hon. Friend is correct to refer to the fact that the Confederation of British Industry has forecast that manufacturing investment will rise by ll¼ per cent in 1995. The manufacturing sector in this country is buoyant and in a strong competitive position. In the three months to November, output was up by 5 per cent., productivity was up by more than 6 per cent. and unit wage costs were down by more than 1 per cent. That is a record of success of which the Government and the country can be proud.

Mr. Sheerman: If the manufacturing sector is to be truly successful in this country and win back home markets as opposed to export markets, is not it about time that the Chancellor and the Bank of England encouraged our financial institutions to think about long-term investment in British manufacturing capacity, rather than engaging in short-termism?

Mr. Aitken: I am sorry that, judging from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question, he does not acknowledge the tremendous success story of British manufacturing industry in export markets. It has been faring extraordinarily well. His charge of "short-termism" is unfair. Anyone who has ever run a business will know that at this point in the economic cycle it is normal for companies to restructure their balance sheets and build up their profits. Investment is expected to improve at the turn of the cycle, and that is why the CBI is forecasting an 11¼ per cent. increase in manufacturing investment.

Mr. Forman: If British manufacturing industry is to retain its competitive edge in highly competitive world


markets, does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in human capital is every bit as important as investment in plant and equipment? Are the figures for investment in human capital as encouraging as the figures that he has given already?

Mr. Aitken: There is certainly continual investment in human capital in the form of the large training budgets allocated by the Government and private industry. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point that human capital is important. However, I also draw his attention to the fact that unemployment is now falling by a rate of 2,000 per day, which shows that human capital is being well deployed in the continuing success story of British industry.

Endowment Mortgages

Mr. Denham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to regulate the market for endowment mortgages.

Mr. Nelson: The sale of endowments is regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986. The new requirements for disclosure of charges and commission will help consumers decide whether endowment mortgages best suit their circumstances.

Mr. Denham: Is not it a fact that four out of five homebuyers in the 1980s chose endowment mortgages because they were told that their investments would not only pay off their mortgages but give them a large lump-sum payment? Does not the decline in the market now mean that many of those bonuses will disappear, and in some cases the investment will not even pay off people's mortgage? Is not that another example of the failure of regulation under the 1986 Act to protect people and their investments?

Mr. Nelson: No, it does not. Although it is true that far fewer people are entering into endowment mortgages than in the 1980s, they still remain an attractive and flexible means of mortgage repayment for many others. The Office of Fair Trading is currently examining repayment and endowment mortgages, and there has been significant tightening-up of the regulatory regime, to prevent mis-selling. Therein lies security for people for whom such mortgages are appropriate and who decide to enter into them.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that house purchase and the associated endowment mortgage are both long-term investments, and that many people who entered into such mortgages have lived to rejoice the day that they did, because they have achieved substantially better returns than inflation and other investment vehicles?

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. Endowment mortgages may continue to be the best means of repaying mortgage obligations for many people. It is true that the lapse rate of many such products has been high, particularly in early years. It is consummately to be hoped that the new commission disclosure regime and the greater protection that has been introduced will in future give greater reassurance and encouragement to prospective investors.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept mat the goal of a peaceful settlement in Ulster is worthy of the courage and patience that he has demonstrated? Will he continue to assure the people of the Province that any final decision will always rest with them?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is a communal will not to be distracted from the goal of a peaceful, permanent and agreed settlement in Northern Ireland. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I have given in the past—the outcome of the political talks, after the main constitutional parties have met and agreed the outcome, will be put to people in a referendum before further action is taken. It is they who will decide, and nothing will be imposed on them.

Mr. Blair: On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister has our full and continued support. On interest rates, however, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm as a matter of fact that after mortgage rises, the cutting of mortgage tax relief and the imposition of the new home insurance tax, the typical home owner will have been paying an extra £800 a year since last April.

The Prime Minister: As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, I appreciate the support of the official Opposition and of other parties as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It is a strength of the process that there is such widespread support for it.
Of course, I appreciate the impact of interest rates on home owners, but what would be most damaging to home owners would be for inflation to take off in the way that it did on past occasions. Interest rates are there to ensure that we have a recovery that curbs inflation. The policies repeatedly advocated by the shadow Chancellor would lead to inflation taking off—and the worst losers from that would be home owners. As a result of our policy on home ownership, the cost of mortgages has fallen dramatically from the peak in interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is the case.

Mr. Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny the figures. What type of recovery peaks when for millions it has barely even begun? The right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers will scrabble around in vain for the feel-good factor when mortgages, taxes and industry's costs are up, and when people feel more insecure precisely because they know that they are worse off under the Tories.

The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a cheek to deny history in the way in which he just did. The level of interest rates that we have reached today is the level that was the lowest achieved at any stage under the previous Labour


Government in five years of Government. The average was far higher. They also had negative interest rates and were robbing savers of their savings by devaluing the currency. [Interruption.] It is because of that sort of irresponsibility that no one will ever again trust the Labour party to run the economy. It is determined to take the short-term option and to ignore the long-term interests.

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 40 per cent, of American and Japanese investment in Europe that comes to the United Kingdom is essentially dependent on our membership of the European Union? Does he further agree that if we cease to be at the heart of Europe those investors will rethink their European operations locations?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It depends on two points: both our membership of the European Union and the conditions of our membership of the European Union. Certainly, the fact that we are members has helped attract a great deal of investment into this country, but it would be lost if the conditions of our membership were to include the social chapter. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not agree, perhaps he could ask the chairman of Daimler-Benz. He had something to say about the social chapter. This is the right hon. Gentleman on the social chapter who thinks that it will cost jobs. He admitted it at one stage. Now he denies it.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister accept that, for as long as he puts the peace of Ireland first, he will command the overwhelming majority of the House and the country? Does he also agree that those who would put in jeopardy the peace of Ireland in order to pursue either narrow sectarian agendas or internal party power struggles, will meet the opposition of the House and earn the contempt of the country?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There is nothing in the peace process that any party in this House need fear. There can be no slippery slope in any process that first requires the agreement of all the parties and then after the agreement of the parties has been obtained subsequently requires the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland themselves. I think that that is a categorical safeguard for all those who are concerned about the development of this process, and I hope that it will be accepted as such by people across ever strand of opinion in Northern Ireland. I hope that everyone will join actively in the search for a lasting settlement, a better future for the Province and a certainty that never again will we go back to the sort of atrocities and horrors that we have seen in Northern Ireland over much of the last quarter of a century.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, on Britain's role in Europe, much of the debate currently in the media is simply sensationalist and trivial? Does he further accept that the time is right for

the House to have a full debate on that particular topic, so that we can steer the country in the direction in which we believe?

Mr. Blair: Which manifesto?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks which manifesto we will debate. He might well ask whether we will debate the policy on Europe of the Opposition Front Bench or the policy of Labour Members of the European Parliament. He might ask whether we will debate his policy or that of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East; the policy of the Labour Front Bench or the policy of the Labour Benches below the Gangway. There certainly is ample scope for a debate on Europe, but I say to my hon. Friend that we would need several days to debate the varied policies of the Labour party.

Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Prime Minister ask his colleagues at the Department of Health why they have not yet resolved the case of Mr. Tony Ruffell, the former chief executive of the Nottinghamshire family health service authority? Following more changes in the health service, Mr. Ruffell has been sitting at home on a salary of £66,000 since last September. Should not there be more focus on patient care and less on bureaucracy?

The Prime Minister: Of course there should, and that is why we are repealing a whole tier of bureaucracy in the health service—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us—and why we oppose the devolution of so much health to unwanted regional authorities throughout the country which would add to bureaucracy. On the detailed point, of course I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to refer to the hon. Gentleman, but if he had really wanted an answer he would have contacted my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the newspapers that half the Treasury building is to be rented out to the private sector? Will he confirm, for a suspicious person such as me, that that has nothing to do with Mr. Santer's call for the abolition of our national currency?

The Prime Minister: I can undoubtedly give my hon. Friend that assurance. On the substantive part of her question, I think that the action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor sets an example across Whitehall and beyond.

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chisholm: Given that Lord Wakeham privatised electricity and then moved to the board of Rothschild, which had carried through that privatisation, what will the Prime Minister be saying to him following today's news that Rothschild is to be the merchant banker for the sell-off of Railtrack? Will he be telling him to keep his


seat warm for the Secretary of State for Transport as a pay-off for this disastrous and deeply unpopular privatisation?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that, over time, it will be as effective and popular a privatisation as those that we have had in the past. I know that the hon. Gentleman would still prefer to be subsidising the old industries by £50 million a week rather than taking in £50 million a week to the Exchequer for the good use of the public at large. That undoubtedly is what would have happened had we not privatised those industries in the past. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it does not merit a reply.

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his Government's commitment to preserving the front-line strength of our armed forces, and will he contrast that with the Opposition's only defence policy, which is to cut, cut and cut again?

The Prime Minister: We are committed to stability for the armed forces. I promised that at Camberley recently and I made it clear that the big upheavals in the armed forces are over. The level of front-line manpower has been set and we do not intend to reduce it. My hon. Friend can be reassured of that. Nor do we intend to adopt Labour's policy of scrapping nuclear defence, or a fresh defence review bringing uncertainty to each and every area of the defence services.

Mr. Home Robertson: What is the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who has said that the Prime Minister's Northern Ireland initiative is dead and buried? Would it not be an

affront to all the soldiers and civilians who have been killed and buried during the past 25 years if that initiative were to be jeopardised as a result of a malicious partial leak of a draft document? Is the Prime Minister aware that all our constitutents are becoming weary of the ancient refrain of "Ulster says no", which is still being parroted by some Unionist members, but, thankfully, only some Unionist members.

The Prime Minister: I believe that there is a wish right across the House—including among hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland—to find a satisfactory way forward. I have not a shred of doubt about that. We have all watched with dismay the activities of the past 25 years; hon. Members who represent Ulster have lived through that in a way in which the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I have not.
I have no doubt, from my contact with hon. Members from Northern Ireland—in regard to points on which we agree, and points on which we do not agree—about their sincerity in seeking to bring to a conclusion the miseries of the past 25 years. What I would ask of all hon. Members is that they wait for the framework document; that they study that document in its entirety; that they examine what it will mean; that they recognise that it is there for consultation; that they then consult on it with other constitutional parties; and that if they agree, they then agree—as I do—to abide by the will of the majority of people in a referendum.

Mr. Skinner: To what end?

The Prime Minister: The end—the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) keeps shouting about it, as he did yesterday—is a very straightforward and simple one. It is to end the horrors of the past 25 years, and to ensure that never again are people killed month after month after month after month as they have been in the past 25 years. I would have hoped that even the hon. Member for Bolsover would support that enterprise.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us next week's business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (4th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The threat to schools from the 1995/96 financial settlement" followed by a debate on passenger services under rail privatisation on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Followed by motions on the Children (Northern Ireland) and the Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Orders.
THURSDAY 9 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the White Paper on the future of the BBC on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
I am not yet able to give even a provisional indication of business on Tuesday and Wednesday of that week, but it may help the House to know I expect the annual debate on the Royal Navy to take place on Thursday 16 February on a motion for the Adjournment.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. He will recall that last week I asked for a debate on the civil service, not least because of the Government's failure to make a statement in the House on their response to the White Paper on the code of conduct. In view of the evidence presented to Lord Nolan's committee this week about the rights and obligations of civil servants, is not the need for a debate on the code of conduct in particular now becoming more urgent? Can the Leader of the House give any further information on his plans?
In view of today's announcement of 600 job losses in the Inland Revenue, and the consequent revenue-raising implications of the loss of an estimated £1.5 billion to £2 billion that will be written off in uncollected tax, when will the House have a chance to debate the full implications of both developments?
One of the issues still to be determined following the change of Budget date and the Jopling report is the timing of full-scale economic debates. I am aware that the Procedure Committee is still considering the issue, but today interest rates have been raised for the third time in six months. That increase will leave mortgage payers reeling. What plans can the Leader of the House announce to ensure that we have a full-scale economic debate in Government time as soon as possible?
Finally, we shall shortly have the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East

(Mr. Barnes). Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government will not try to block that Bill on Second Reading?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady's first two questions are linked—her further request for a debate on the civil service and her comments on the information about the Inland Revenue. While I would not for a moment accept the inferences that she drew from the latter, I acknowledge the continued pressure for a debate on civil service matters. I shall continue to bear that in mind, even though I am not in a position to say anything more definite today.
Similarly, I cannot give an immediate undertaking about a particular date or plan for a large-scale economic debate. However, I am aware that there has been a great deal of talk about that ever since the unified Budget was introduced. I shall, as always, look constructively at the matters that the hon. Lady has raised.
On the hon. Lady's point about the private Member's disability Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will make the Government's position clear during the Second Reading debate. Of course, on Second Reading of the Government's Disability (Discrimination) Bill he made it clear that, for a number of reasons, he would be asking the House to support the Government's Bill, not that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

Sir Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the legal opinion produced by Compassion in World Farming, which refutes the view expressed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it would be illegal for Britain to impose a ban on the export of live animals for slaughter?
As this is clearly an important issue and as it would be a shame if we could not debate the merits because the Department was hiding behind a legal smokescreen, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate, with Law Officers present, so that we can clarify the legal position?

Mr. Newton: I am, of course, aware of the opinion to which my right hon. Friend referred, but he will be aware that in a substantial statement yesterday announcing action on a number of fronts to achieve our aim—to end the production of veal from calves in veal crates not in this country, where it has already been ended, but elsewhere—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food clearly set out the careful and thorough legal advice that he has received. I note the request from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), but I cannot give the immediate undertaking that he seeks.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House take note of early-day motion 527, which has now been amended and is endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which welcomes BRAKE, the campaign for safer lorries?
[That this House, noting the terrifying cases of death and injury caused by defective heavy goods vehicles, welcomes the campaign BRAKES; and demands that the Secretary of State for Transport takes urgent action to protect the general public by extending the powers of traffic commissioners to allow the impounding of defective vehicles, by increasing the fines for companies running defective vehicles and by increasing the frequency and effectiveness of enforcement of the road traffic regulations.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the senior traffic commissioner has already warned that if the 20 to 25 per cent. cut in the inspectorate goes ahead, the result will be appalling—not only because of the damage caused to property by heavy lorries, but because of the large number of people who are killed or seriously injured? Does he accept that there is all-party concern on this matter and that it deserves an early debate?

Mr. Newton: While I cannot immediately accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, I certainly acknowledge that anything connected with the safety of heavy vehicles and the possible consequences if they are defective is of concern to all hon. Members and to the public. My right hon. and hon. Friends will carefully consider any recommendations put forward by BRAKE.

Sir Norman Fowler: May we have a debate on the leak of information about the talks on Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is certainly the role of newspapers to expose the truth, it is a matter of public concern that The Times may have allowed itself to be used for propaganda purposes in an attempt to wreck the talks that have been taking place?

Mr. Newton: The implicit comments in my right hon. Friend's remarks are perhaps all the more telling in that he is a former employee of The Times newspaper, going back far enough, and therefore I give great weight to his remarks. Beyond that, I can tell the House that the Cabinet Secretary is making inquiries into where the leak may have come from. Obviously, I do not want to comment further this afternoon.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement in the House on the consequences of implementing the 64 recommendations of Sir John Woodcock in relation to the Whitemoor prison escape? As those will cost £150 million, will the Home Secretary tell us whether cuts will fall on other sections of the Prison Service, on the victims of violent crime, or on Streetwatch?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that, just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering carefully the recommendations of that report, and will consider carefully anything that emerges from the other reports that have been set in hand, he will bear in mind the balance of cost and advantage, and take account of the sort of points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Peter Viggers: If no time is available for a general economic debate next week, may we have a debate on the much narrower subject of the explosion of house and mortgage prices among socialist house owners because, on the basis of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition alleging that £800 had been added to the average house owner's costs this year, he and his friends have mortgages of £160,000? That must be a considerable problem and burden to them.

Mr. Newton: My safest course is to hope that the Opposition Front Bench team will take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Derek Enright: The Leader of the House will be aware that Bromley council has forbidden the parishioners of St. Edmund's church, Beckenham to park their cars outside the church after 9.30 on a

Sunday, because they interfere with the trolleys that are going into Sainsbury's next door. As that is not in the spirit of Sunday trading as enunciated by the Home Secretary, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary urgently to come along next week and assure us that churches will not be closed so that shops may stay open?

Mr. Newton: I have to admit that I was not aware of Bromley borough council's decision. I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who I am sure would not wish churches to be impeded in any way because of proper Sunday trading.

Mr. Richard Tracey: May I support the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for a debate on leaking and on all matters that appertain to it? Surely all hon. Members believe that leaking information on critical and confidential discussions in Government or local government is counter-productive to the operation of government. The House should debate this as a matter of seriousness and of urgency.

Mr. Newton: Personally I share my hon. Friend's view about the difficulties caused by leaks, of whatever kind. I am not sure that his view would be universally shared by all Opposition Members, but the extent to which it is shared in relation to the leak that has caused the difficulties in the past 48 hours has been clear and heartening.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ensure that another statement is made next week on Northern Ireland and on the framework document, so that we may ascertain precisely the Tory Government's end game in relation to resolving the problem of Northern Ireland and to ensuring lasting peace? We are all in favour of that. What we are concerned about is that, when the talks began, a united Ireland was neither ruled in nor ruled out. It seems that, as a result of the statement yesterday, a united Ireland has been ruled out, so it is important that we know exactly what the Government plan is. Where is it leading to? Surely we should now be told exactly what are the proposals of the Government to achieve that lasting peace.

Mr. Newton: I do not for a moment accept the way in which the hon. Gentleman asks that question. He was apparently attempting to put a similar question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister towards the end of the exchanges a few minutes ago. I thought that my right hon. Friend had made the position absolutely clear—the overwhelming majority of hon. Members thought so—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to cause any further difficulty in this matter.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)? Does the Leader of the House agree that a free, responsible press is absolutely essential to the functioning of a democracy but that an irresponsible press can undermine democracy? May we have a debate on the general issue of the freedom and ethics of the press?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N.


Fowler) and another colleague, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. I think, and hope, that the points, which have now been made by three colleagues, will be firmly registered by those responsible for printing the story in question.

Mr. Stephen Timms: Is the Leader of the House aware of a recent report published by the Single Homelessness in London organisation which revealed that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of places for homeless people in direct access hostels in the capital and that there is growing pressure on the dwindling number of places that are available? Will he arrange for an early debate on the problems facing homeless people in London?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I can point out that my right hon. and hon. Friends have in recent years devoted a great deal of effort, with considerable success, to reducing the problem of homelessness in London. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's point to their attention.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Tory Benches would like an early debate on the constitutional and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom? As Unionists, we want to make it quite clear that we support the Union and apologise to no one for that.

Mr. Newton: I see no need for my hon. Friend to apologise for that. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear during the previous election campaign the importance that he attaches to the matter.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on parliamentary procedure and, in particular, ministerial replies to parliamentary questions? May I have an assurance that by the time that I give evidence to the Nolan committee next Thursday all the questions that I have tabled in recent weeks in relation to lobbying, especially those tabled to the Department of Trade, will have been answered in full?

Mr. Newton: Without knowing the detail of the very large number of questions that I know the hon. Gentleman has tabled and the difficulties involved in answering them I cannot give him such an undertaking off the cuff. I know from the effort that I have put into answering the questions that he has put to me that every effort is being made to answer them and I am sure that every effort will continue to be made.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent early debate on the implications for jobs and taxation levels of the reimposition of trade union control and the policy of public ownership which will exist in the Labour party despite the rewriting, recasting or scrapping of clause IV?

Mr. Skinner: If only it were true.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's comment on my hon. Friend's important point was filled with nostalgia. I cannot promise an early debate, but it would certainly be an interesting issue to discuss.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May we have a debate on junior doctors' hours? Does the Leader of the House

agree that, in view of the fact that the wife of British Telecom boss Iain Vallance earns £19,000 a year for two days a week as chair of St. George's Healthcare Trust, while junior doctors work up to 100 hours a week and earn £12,000, her husband's recent remarks showed gross ignorance and crass insensitivity?

Mr. Newton: I could see considerable merit in a debate on junior doctors' hours, which would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to set out strikingly the progress that the Government have made in reducing those hours.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the welcome news that the provision of travel passes for London's pensioners and disabled people has been confirmed for the forthcoming year to cover bus, tube and rail travel for the first time? That debate would inform people in London and around the country that their passes are safe once more and will not be undermined by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Newton: That was another very good point from my hon. Friend. I draw his attention to the fact that the Department of Transport is answering questions on Monday during which he may usefully find a way in which to underline that point.

Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Minister responsible for transport and road safety today announced a further swingeing cut of 20 per cent, in vehicle inspectorate staffing, and as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) pointed out that BRAKE, the national campaign for safer lorries, was launched today, may we have a debate next week on the number of deaths on our roads due to ill-maintained lorries, including the 40,000 lorries estimated to travel on our roads without licences, which clearly concerns people more than the Government's dangerous rush to deregulation?

Mr. Newton: I have already made a couple of points relevant to the hon. Lady's question. First, the Department of Transport will answer questions on Monday and, secondly, returning to a point made by one of her hon. Friends earlier, of course the Government are ready to consider any recommendations made by BRAKE.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen the text of recent speech by the Governor of the Bank of England on the economic impracticalities of a single currency? Is it not therefore important to have a debate on the single subject of the single currency, not least because I am aware that, while the Leader of the Opposition constantly dreams about a single currency, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the foreign affairs spokesman, talks about it being a nightmare? In that spirit, may we have a debate and a free vote?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard the responses of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar request in Prime Minister's Question Time, in which my right hon. Friend drew attention to the myriad of views among Labour Members on those matters. I shall not seek to add to that.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on children's rights in Britain? He must be concerned, as we all are, by last week's report of the United Nations committee—


[Laughter.]—that Britain was continually violating the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I am sure that he considers it serious, even if his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) does not.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware that, given the extensive improvements in the rights of children through the Children Act 1989, the suggestion that the Government are in any way neglectful of the rights and interests of children would, indeed, be far-fetched.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 527.
[That this House, noting the terrifying cases of death and injury caused by defective heavy goods vehicles, welcomes the campaign BRAKES; and demands that the Secretary of State for Transport takes urgent action to protect the general public by extending the powers of traffic commissioners to allow the impounding of defective vehicles, by increasing the fines for companies running defective vehicles and by increasing the frequency and effectiveness of enforcement of the road traffic regulations.]
I urge my right hon. Friend to find time for a debate on that important subject so that Transport Ministers may inform us of the efficiency that they expect of the Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency, and point out that the Government would find any cut in inspections totally inappropriate, as it is essential that they are continued? There is a difference between wanting an organisation to be more efficient and wanting it to cut services.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an important point which I hope will be registered on the Opposition Benches. On the main issue that he raised, I cannot add to what I have now said twice: of course the Government would look very carefully at any recommendations in that area which seemed relevant and necessary.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Leader of the House aware that, since the last general election, Scottish Members have been denied an opportunity to question the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland because he is not a Member of this House? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister to make a statement next week to the Scottish Grand Committee so that he can explain, for example, why Forth Valley health board continues obstinately to refuse my reasonable request to hold at least one public consultative meeting so that the public can voice their objections to the proposed closure of Lochgreen hospital?

Mr. Newton: If I may take the primary thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question as being a representation about a particular hospital matter in Scotland, I will of course draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister in another place.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I will bring his request in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I must point out that nothing has changed—the same applied before the general election—in respect of the inability of this House to

question Members of another place and the inability of Members in the other place to question Ministers in this House.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I remind my right hon. Friend that European Standing Committee B debated the data protection directive some weeks ago. Is he aware that, despite being condemned by both sides of the Committee as being ludicrously bureaucratic and over-regulatory, that directive is likely to be approved by the Council of Ministers, partly because the Foreign Office simply has not given the directive the priority that it deserves on the United Kingdom Government's negotiating list? Is it not time that we did something about the way in which we scrutinise European legislation so that it is more accountable to the House and time that we brought the legislative system in the European Community more under control?

Mr. Newton: I have to say to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that I do not accept his comments about the position of the Foreign Office. Beyond that, I would certainly wish to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be concerned with proceedings in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Max Madden: On the issue of building confidence in the Irish peace process, will the Leader of the House answer a question of which I gave his office prior notice today? Do the Government intend to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the orders linked to it?

Mr. Newton: Yes. The Act is due for renewal by 22 March and I expect to bring forward the necessary motion in due course.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate on regional government during the course of which we could express the resentment of the people of Kent in respect of the proposal that they would have to pay increased taxation to sustain a vast and interfering bureaucracy at Reading, which is the Labour party's proposal?

Mr. Newton: Once again, I find myself increasingly tempted by the requests for such a debate because the whole country, not simply the House, would like to hear from Opposition Front-Bench Members how they would justify the extra bureaucracy and the associated additional costs of some of the proposals that they appear to have in mind. However, the first thing to do would be to clarify just what it is that they have in mind.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement and have a debate on the future of the Forth rail bridge? I have tried on numerous occasions to ask the Secretary of State—whom I gave notice that I was raising this matter today—to answer questions about the inquiry. I have visited it with my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Forth rail bridge is the property of the people of Scotland and they are worried about its maintenance,


safety and future. The matter should come before the House for discussion and I hope that the Leader of the House will give it the priority that it deserves.

Mr. Newton: I begin by reminding the hon. Gentleman of what I said either last week or the week before. Responsibility for the Forth rail bridge rests with Railtrack. However, as a result of representations made by hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for education and housing in Scotland has made inquiries with Railtrack about the maintenance of the bridge. My hon. Friend is here this afternoon to hear further representations, and I am grateful to him for that. He tells me that he will write to the hon. Members concerned shortly.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a written reply which I received from the Maritime Safety Agency on Monday, which disclosed that it was unable to declare precisely what proportion of the British fishing fleet is in Spanish hands. The industry believes that up to 30 per cent. of the British fishing fleet is Spanish owned, but now—under European regulations—the Maritime Safety Agency is unable to supply that information. Does my right hon. Friend think that mat would be a suitable topic to raise during the debate on the Royal Navy, given the responsibility that the Royal Navy will have in protecting the British fisheries fleet? Should there be a separate debate on the issue, or should the matter be raised during the debate on the Navy on Thursday week?

Mr. Newton: I see you, Madam Speaker, looking as puzzled as I am regarding the latter question, which is of course a question for you and not me, I am glad to say. No doubt you will offer what advice you can about what will be in order during the debate on the Royal Navy.
The right thing for me to do is to say to my hon. Friend that I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I am sure would wish to communicate with him about it.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: In view of the pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the statements made last week by the Secretary of State for Social Security that Ministers do not earn enough, could time be made for a debate on this matter, particularly as the Secretary of State for Social Security suggested that Back Benchers' salaries should be reduced to enable them to take jobs elsewhere? Does not that create an interesting constitutional matter in relation to the role and responsibilities of those of us who are honoured to be elected to serve in the House and to represent the rights of our constituents?

Mr. Newton: In recent times, the House has had a number of opportunities to debate the pay of hon. Members and Ministers, and I have no immediate expectation of providing a further opportunity.

Sir Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend will have heard the exchanges earlier with the Prime Minister in respect of the debate on Europe. Does he recognise that there is a specific question on the timing of when the House can express a view, given that the ministerial summit was proposed to take place originally

at the end of January? Will he ensure that the House is given a full opportunity to express its views in proper time before that summit is confirmed?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to him during questions. He will no doubt be aware of some comments which I made on the subject either last week or the week before. The working group which is working preparatorily to any summit of the kind that my hon. Friend has in mind will be carrying forward its work later this year. However, I will bear in mind the request for a debate, although I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time.

Ms Judith Church: Further to the important questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), will the Leader of the House make time for a debate next week on executive pay and pay relativity, in view of comments of the chairman of British Telecom, Sir Iain Vallance, to the Select Committee earlier this week that he would find the work of a junior hospital doctor more relaxing? That matter is raised in early-day motion 531.
[That this House notes with disdain Sir Iain Vallance's comments to the Employment Committee on 31st January suggesting that a National Health Service junior doctor's job might be more relaxing than his current position as Chairman of BT; notes particularly the results of a recent survey which showed over 50 per cent. of junior doctors worked beyond the recommended 72 hours on pay as low as £12,500 a year; believes this compares dismally with Sir Iain's current £663,000 BT salary including a bonus of £185,000 and other benefits of £13,000; further notes that Sir Iain's non-executive directorship on the board of the Royal Bank of Scotland brings in a further £50,000 for one-and-a-half days a month, a weekly rate of £1,371; considers this vastly over inflated salary is neither fair or just reward but a breeding ground for resentment— particularly within his own company—especially if one compares the weekly pay of various grades in BT, notably a domestic cleaner on £162.99, an operator on £193.48, and a clerical assistant on £190.91; and reminds him that it is thanks to the efforts of the workforce, especially CWU members, that last year he pocketed a performance bonus of £185,000, an increase of 105 per cent., whilst the workforce settled for 2.9 per cent. and that since privatisation in 1984 CWU members wages have risen by 80 per cent. whilst his have rocketed by 687 per cent.]

Mr. Newton: It appears that there is some kind of effort by Opposition Members to continue to raise this matter. I understand that and I do not complain about it, but having now commented on it twice, I will not try to have a third shot.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Would not it be futile to follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice on asking questions next week about reducing lorry dangers, as the Government have already told me that they have no intention of beefing up the MOT certificate procedure, which was the cause of the lorry problem in Sowerby Bridge where a tragedy occurred? The lorry involved had a forged certificate. Is not it true that the MOT certificate system is corrupt? A debate is essential so that we can expose the fact that the Department of Transport indirectly employs the lorries used in building the second Severn crossing and, of the 190 lorries involved, one third


were found to be unlicensed and illegal. We need nothing short of a debate to expose the cowboys who are killing 700 people every year.

Mr. Newton: I have already drawn attention to the attendance here next Monday of the Transport Secretary and his Ministers and have given two or three assurances that the Government will consider any recommendations made by BRAKE. I do not think that I can add to that answer now.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), will more serious aspects of the Forth railway bridge be taken into account, so that we can have a full debate? My hon. Friend and I visited the bridge, walked across it and took a boat in between the structures and it is clearly in a desperate state. It requires immediate attention and it requires more than my hon. Friend was offered in the reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman insist that the Scottish Office takes seriously the concerns that we are expressing about the structure? Given its importance—I understand that it is the eighth wonder of the world—perhaps he will treat the matter seriously and arrange time for a debate on the bridge.

Mr. Newton: I resist the suggestion that I have shown any sign of not taking the matter seriously. It is fair comment that the very fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—the Minister to whom I referred— has taken the trouble to be here, expecting that those matters would be raised, demonstrates the seriousness with which he takes the matter. He will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and I am sure that he will consider it carefully.

Mr. Tony Banks: I hope, Madam Speaker, that you noticed how dangerous it is up here, sitting between two beefy Scotsmen with flailing arms. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 430?
[That this House notes that the annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals which give details of the number of animal tests carried out in 1993 has still to be published; calls on the Home Office to take action to speed up the process of publishing annual statistics showing the number of animals used in scientific procedures; and demands that the statistics for 1993 are published immediately.]
Will he join me in sending the condolences of the House to the family of Jill Phipps, the young woman who was tragically killed outside Coventry airport, protesting about the export of veal calves. The right hon. Gentleman obviously understands the intense revulsion for that export trade throughout the country. Notwithstanding statements by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, may we have a debate so that the temperature and feelings of the House can be heard, not only in Government, but in Brussels?

Mr. Newton: The first thing that I want to say, which I am sure that the House would want, is that we all share the hon. Gentleman's desire to send sympathy to the family of the woman killed at Coventry airport. On the rest of his question, the West Midlands police force is investigating the matter, under the supervision of the

Police Complaints Authority, and it is right, certainly for me from the Front Bench, to await the outcome of that process.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Earlier this month, the Secretary of State for the Environment launched a policy document, "Air Quality—Meeting the Challenge", which proposed a number of policies, including those designed to increase the use of public transport and reduce car usage. Is the Leader of the House aware that, on Monday, British Rail commuters face fare increases that are massively in excess of inflation? Londoners, who pay the highest commuter fares in western Europe, are especially hard hit. Will he find time next week for both Secretaries of State to come to the House to explain the apparent conflict in Government policy?

Mr. Newton: I have adverted several times to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be here to answer questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to put that question to him then. However, it has been made clear by both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the aim of the Government's policy for the railways is to make them more attractive for people to use and, therefore, help stem the relentless decline in the use of the railways which has been taking place for more than a generation.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House has undoubtedly seen early-day motion 466 in support of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
[That this House notes that the second reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on Friday 10th February 1995 is an historic opportunity to introduce full citizenship rights for the United Kingdom's 6.5 million people with disabilities; further notes that the Bill has the sponsorship of Right honourable and honourable Members from nine political groups in the House; recognises the support the Bill also has from the Rights Now Consortium, the TUC and many other groups and individuals; welcomes the Bill's inclusion of a Disability Rights Commission so that comprehensive antidiscrimination provisions can be activated and advanced on the same basis as those designed to tackle discrimination on the grounds of gender and race; and further welcomes the Bill's measures aimed at increasing accessibility to voting and to polling stations as the vote is the fundamental building block for the operation of democracy and civil rights.]
That Bill is now supported by hon. Members from all 10 political groups in the House, including from the two Conservative parties. Will the Minister clarify the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), in which he said that the Government would support its own Bill, the Disability (Discrimination) Bill? Does that mean that they will oppose the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on 10 February?

Mr. Newton: I thought that I had made the position clear by referring to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People said on Second Reading of the Government's Disability (Discrimination) Bill on 24


January. I may not have made it clear that I was quoting his words from column 153 ofHansard, to which I refer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the shocking revelations made on Scottish Television yesterday evening that thousands of British families who were formerly living in Northern Ireland have been driven into exile by kangaroo courts of paramilitary organisations during the period of the troubles? Why have none of the organisations, such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror, a non-sectarian group representing those who have been oppressed, been asked to be involved in discussions on the future of Northern Ireland? They must be involved if the real people of Northern Ireland, not the paramilitaries, are to decide how that structure will come about and people can return from exile to their homes.

Mr. Newton: I did not see the interview to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I make the obvious point that avoiding such a position is among the objectives of the Government's efforts to ensure future peace in Northern Ireland. I imagine—obviously, I cannot know—that many of those involved in the organisations to which he refers are, in some way, members of political parties in Northern Ireland, and they clearly have a part in the process.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: In the light of the prison fiascos at Whitemoor and Parkhurst, may we have an urgent ministerial statement on the report of Judge Tumim into the privatised prison at Blakenhurst, which showed inefficient management, insufficient and

untrained staff, and lack of control of prisoners? Does he agree that privatised prisons are not only an expensive folly but a dangerous folly?

Mr. Newton: I shall simply say that the difficulties experienced at Blakenhurst are of the kind often experienced when a completely new prison is opened, whatever the arrangements under which it is opened. I understand that those difficulties have now been resolved. The hon. Gentleman did not refer, as I would, to the fact that the chief inspector praised the quality, high motivation and enthusiasm of the Blakenhurst staff.

Mr. George Foulkes: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for leaving me until last.

Madam Speaker: Of course, I recognise that, but Front-Benchers are always left until the last, in my mind.

Mr. Foulkes: But the exercise is particularly welcome as well.
On a more serious matter, may I assure the Leader of the House that Scottish Members of the United Kingdom Parliament would welcome more time to debate issues concerning London, particularly Westminster city council. May we have a debate to discuss not only the gerrymandering but the recent revelation, surprisingly— or perhaps not so surprisingly—in the Daily Telegraph, that £30 million was wasted on housing repairs? That brings disgrace not just to Westminster, but, as Parliament is situated within that London borough, to the whole country. Should not we be given time to debate that matter fully and have an explanation from Ministers?

Mr. Newton: After that, I do not think that I can say that I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall bring his representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Points of Order

Sir Terence Higgins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I had evidently misunderstood the reply of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to my request for a debate. We should have an opportunity in the House of debating the issue of whether there was a legal impediment on banning the export of live animals for slaughter. My right hon. Friend referred to a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. I searched in vain in Hansard, looking through written answers and everything else, but could find no trace of a statement. I understand that the statement was made outside the House. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to confirm that a statement outside the House is no substitute for a debate within it?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I often, from this very Chair, say that any statements that are made should first be made in the House and to hon. Members. I am glad to have the support of the right hon. Gentleman in that. I see that the Leader of the House wants to make a further point and, although I will not allow a debate on the subject, I think it only right to allow the Leader of the House to answer.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) knows that I would always want to consider carefully such a point when it is made by him. If I misled him in any way—and certainly if I implied that there had been a statement in the House—I give him an unqualified apology. I think that it is well known that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday set out fairly fully the legal advice that he had received. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing would want to acknowledge that.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will table a parliamentary question, so that we may all know the legal advice that has been received.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I share the concern about statements made outside, rather than inside, the House— we have suffered from that for years.
I seek some guidance. I understood that it was the tradition in the House that, if an issue affecting a region was raised, a representative of that region would be called. I had Question 10 on today's Order Paper and began to rise in my place when Northern Ireland was mentioned in the first question. I was not called although four other right hon. and hon. Members were called and were able to speak about Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) even mentioned my colleague, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was advised in advance about the reference. Significantly, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East also failed to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, on Tuesday last. My I have some guidance on the matter?

Madam Speaker: Yes, of course. It is almost impossible for the Chair to call an hon. Member simply because his or her region, town or constituency has been mentioned in Question Time. Of course, during a debate,

I would hope that hon. Members would give way and allow an intervention. But if the occupant of the Chair were always to allow such an intervention during Question Time, I am afraid that we would seldom malice any progress through the Order Paper. Hon. Members can see the layout of today's Prime Minister's Questions on the Order Paper. I saw the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) stand up, but he had tabled question 10 on the Order Paper and I could not call him in advance of that question.
As for matters yesterday, if the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard he will see that, not only were a good cross-section of English, Scottish and Welsh Members called, but all the Northern Ireland parties were called to question the Secretary of State. I kept the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box for almost an hour to ensure that a cross-section of the House questioned him properly.

Mr. Rupert Allason: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance about the conduct of Business Questions. Is it not correct that some time ago you ruled that there should be no duplication of questions during Business Questions? This afternoon there were four questions on precisely the same subject—lorry safety and the BRAKE campaign. There were three orchestrated questions relating to Iain Vallance and two questions relating to the Forth bridge.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to the attention of the House. We do not want repetition because it means that Business Questions go on for much longer than necessary. At the same time, if there are two or three questions on the same subject it indicates to the Leader of the House and to the Government the strong feeling that there is in the House about a certain matter.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. During Prime Minister's Question Time misinformation was given to the House about the appointment of Rothschilds by the Department of Transport. In fact, Rothschilds have been and remain advisers to Railtrack, and no new appointment has been made. What remedy is available to hon. Members to set the record straight about that matter?

Madam Speaker: I think that hon. Members might pay particular attention to the Order Paper and put down either an early-day motion or a parliamentary question to the appropriate Department so that the matter may be corrected, if indeed it needs correcting.

BILLS PRESENTED

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Rev. Ian Paisley, supported by Rev. William McCrea and Mr. Peter Robinson, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Northern Ireland, discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 March 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 2:
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
The regulations provide for the introduction of the new incapacity benefit, which will replace sickness benefit and invalidity benefit from 13 April 1995. The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations describe the own occupation test and the new all work test of incapacity and how they will be applied. The transitional regulations describe the arrangements for preventing cash losses when current invalidity benefit and sickness benefit recipients transfer to incapacity benefit.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech; he is very patient. Is he aware that no fewer than 160,000 people in Wales are dependent on invalidity benefit, largely as a result of the old industrial structures and the industrial diseases that went with them? Will he give a categorical assurance that none of them will be out of pocket as a result of the changes? If he cannot do so, will he say what proportion of those 160,000 people will lose out?

Mr. Hague: I can certainly give an undertaking that there will be no cash losses at the point of change; the Government have explained that on many occasions and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with our undertaking.
People may be tested subsequently under the all work test—although about half the current recipients will be exempt from the test—who will not receive incapacity benefit in future because they are found to be capable of work, just as people are discovered to be no longer eligible for invalidity benefit after a certain period. They will be entitled to receive other benefits, and I shall describe some of the arrangements that will be made. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no cash losers at the point of change.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many existing recipients may not receive incapacity benefit in future because of the operation of the new test. I have published a figure of 220,000 for the whole country for the first two years of operation. I am not sure whether figures are available specifically for Wales, but if they are I will give them before the end of the debate.
It is important to remind the House of the background to the changes. Invalidity benefit is the fastest growing contributory benefit. The number of people in receipt of it has doubled in the past decade from 740,000 in 1983 to 1.6 million in 1993, and expenditure has more than doubled in real terms in the past 10 years from £3.1 billion to £7 billion in 1993-94. That dramatic growth has occurred at a time when the nation as a whole is becoming healthier. There is widespread concern that invalidity

benefit now goes to people for whom it was never intended originally. No responsible Government could allow that growth to continue unattended. If we did so, spending could increase to up to £10 billion by the end of the century. That is why the provision of invalidity benefit was the first area that we examined in our long-term review of the social security system.
The Social Security (Incapacity For Work) Act 1994 introduced the Government's reforms to incapacity benefit provision. It provides the structure and powers for creating a more coherent, affordable and sustainable system of incapacity provision, with better targeting of benefits on those who are genuinely incapable of work because of their medical condition.
The tests of incapacity for work set out in the draft Incapacity For Work (General) Regulations 1995 will be used to determine entitlement to incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and the disability premium in the income-related benefits, where paid on the grounds of incapacity.

Mr. Andrew Miller: As the transition, the new test and the 32-page application form for new claimants will require considerable staff training and patient explanations to applicants, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no repeat of the shambles that accompanied the introduction of the disability living allowance?

Mr. Hague: The Department recognises the great difficulties that accompanied the introduction of DLA, from which a good many lessons were learnt. Much of the expertise gained in resolving those difficulties is being put to use in preparing for incapacity benefit. Much time and effort is being devoted to the matter, and the hon. Gentleman will find that the administrative and other procedures will work efficiently and properly, as the House intended. I will spend a good deal of my time ensuring that they do.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I understand that 140,000 appeals are expected in the next few months. Will the same speed and efficiency that the Minister claims for adjudication and testing apply to the appeals procedure?

Mr. Hague: Appeals will be largely in the hands of the independent tribunal service. It is well aware that there is likely to be a considerable increase in appeals and is preparing for that eventuality. I hope and intend that appeals will be considered expeditiously.
In most cases, for the first 28 weeks of sickness a person's capacity will be judged, as now, against their ability to do their own job. After 28 weeks, the new all work test will apply. Consideration of all work is not new. In the current system, after a reasonable period, capacity is assessed against a wider range of work. The new all work test is the key to our reforms. Our main objectives are to focus provision on those who are genuinely unfit for work, to provide a simpler, fairer and more objective assessment of incapacity and to meet the expressed concerns about the current role of general practitioners as gatekeepers to the new benefit.
The all work test is the culmination of an extensive programme of development work undertaken over nearly two years. After initial in-house studies using nearly 1,000 case studies and open consultation with a wide range of


interested parties, a panel of 80 experts was convened to assist the development work. The group consisted of experts in fields relevant to incapacity for work— practitioners from various disciplines in medicine and occupational health, academics specialising in disability issues and members of disability organisations. The panel took part in a series of exercises to help establish an accurate means of measuring functional impairment and gauging its effect on capacity for work.
The data that emerged from the panel's work were used to devise a method of assessment that was tested in two evaluation exercises involving nearly 900 existing invalidity benefit claimants. The sample of volunteer claimants used was broadly representative of the normal flow of cases called for medical examinations. The Government are most grateful to the members of the expert panel for their help in designing the detail of the all work test. All the data that they produced were taken into account in the final proposals.
In developing the mental health assessment in the new all work test, we were advised by and have carefully taken into account the views of representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We are grateful for that help and intend to keep in touch with the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the new test when it is implemented.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am interested to hear that the Government set up a panel of experts to look at changing the system of benefits, and that they are investigating people who, it was suggested, were not sick. Is the Minister aware that there are two different classes in our society? Some people have to work for a living and do not get paid if they do not attend. Many of them finish up on invalidity benefit when they are sick. Can the Minister tell me how many of the experts who sat on that panel ascertaining whether a working man or woman was fit or unfit for work were those who had to work for a living, and whom do not get paid if they do not attend? If a Member of Parliament does not come to work, he or she still gets paid. If a miner does not go, he does not get paid. I find it more than odd. It is hypocritical that the Government chose that group of people, as probably none of them has experienced the problem of having to work hard, suffer losses and claim invalidity benefit. Yet they are the very people who decide what kind of benefits are given to those wealth creators. How many?

Mr. Hague: Let me clarify something about the panel. The purpose of the panel was not to decide who was sick or incapable of work but to help in drawing up a test that would be fair and objective and to take into account the expertise of people on that panel. Many members of the panel would resent the suggestion that they have never had to work hard—

Mr. Skinner: I did not say that.

Mr. Hague: At one point I think that the hon. Gentleman said that.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the way in which members of the panel were paid for their regular employment. I am not familiar with the way in which each member was paid, but if information is available on that I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have it. I am sure that he will be extremely interested in it.
I am trying to show that the development of the new test has been an open process. We have consulted widely. We have involved outside experts—

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I shall give way once more, but then I must make some progress with my speech.

Dr. Bray: The consultation and treatment of the mentally ill has been continuing, as the Minister says, and I hope that it will continue. Is he satisfied that the manuscript addition of a mental illness in regulation 10 is the only amendment required to cover the ground that he has been discussing with the Royal College of Psychiatry, or are there other amendments on, for example, the disqualification for misconduct and so on, which seem to overlap with other legislation on the treatment of the mentally ill?

Mr. Hague: I believe that the insertion of severe mental illness in that regulation is the only change necessary, but no doubt if the hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may have other changes to advocate, and I will listen carefully to what he has to say.
The all work test will assess the effect of a person's medical condition on his or her ability to carry out work-related functions. It will focus on medical factors alone—the only relevant consideration of medical incapacity for work. Non-medical activities, such as education, skills and experience, may affect the ability to get a job, but they are not a cause of medical incapacity. It is the medical condition that distinguishes the long-term sick from the unemployed. To include non-medical factors in the assessment would reintroduce the problems of the current system. It would mean that incapacity benefit would be paid to people because they are unemployed rather than incapable of work. We have protected the position of the most seriously ill and disabled by making them exempt from the test. We have consulted leading disability organisations on the list of exemptions. Again, I am most grateful for the help that we have received.
We have recognised the particular problems caused by mental illness by designing special procedures for claimants with a mental health problem. Those with a severe diagnosis will be exempt. Those with a mild to moderate problem will be interviewed by a Benefits Agency medical services doctor who will have received special training in this area. There are arrangements to ensure that the claimant's own doctors will be able to give full relevant information on each case, including, if relevant, the possible effects of being found fit for work. We have also made provision for the small number of conditions where incapacity cannot be measured functionally. The arrangement here will cover such things as people awaiting major surgery or who could be suffering from a previously undiagnosed condition or who have an uncontrolled or uncontrollable condition.
In most cases, claimants will be able to give their own assessment of the effects of their medical condition in a questionnaire. Their doctors will be asked to provide a statement of diagnosis and of the principal disabling effects of the condition. If necessary, we will ask doctors to provide further information. I want to make it quite clear that any information given by claimants' own


doctors will be taken fully into account in the assessment, but we will no longer ask the GP for an opinion on capacity for all work. That change meets the concerns that GPs and others have expressed about their current gatekeeper role.
The majority of claimants will be asked to attend an examination by a Benefits Agency medical services doctor, who will have been fully trained for his crucial role in the assessment. An independent adjudication officer will weigh all the evidence—from the claimant, his doctor and the Benefits Agency doctor—and will apply the all work test to find out if the claimant is capable of work.
We will ensure that there are effective sanctions for those customers who do not comply with the requirement to return the questionnaire for the all work test or to attend a medical examination, if this is necessary. If they fail without good cause to do either, they will be treated as capable of work. There will be six weeks to return the questionnaire and at least seven days' notice of an examination unless they agree to a shorter period of notice. However, we will ensure also that no one will be disallowed where good cause exists.
We recognise that sick and disabled people may have difficulty in complying because of their condition. Good cause is not defined in legislation, but existing case law explains that consideration should include any facts that probably would have caused a reasonable person to act as the claimant did—for example, the claimant's knowledge of the social security system and information that the claimant has received or could have obtained.
In addition, regulation 9 of the general regulations introduces a requirement, when considering good cause, to include whether the person was outside Great Britain at the relevant time, the person's state of health and the nature of their disability.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister explained that many of our unemployed constituents have managed to get themselves on to this benefit. Many of us know that before the 1987 election there was an enormous drive in employment offices to get people off unemployment benefit and on to this benefit so that the electorate could see falling unemployment rolls before they went to the polls. The advantage of our constituents drawing this benefit is that not only is it slightly higher than they would otherwise get, but it allows their wives to work and therefore to raise family income.
The Minister has told us of the savings that he expects to make, largely as a result of kicking unemployed people off this benefit roll. Did he ask his Department to undertake a similar calculation of what would be the fall in the number of beneficiaries if the Government managed to reduce unemployment to its level in 1979 when they took office?

Mr. Hague: As we have seen during recent months, the Government are making huge progress in reducing unemployment. In the past year, an additional 220,000 people have taken up full-time work. Employment in almost all or all regions is substantially improving.
That does not get us away from the fact that invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit, as it is to be from April, is intended for people who are medically incapable of work.

The reforms are designed to reassert that and to assure that for the future. The Government believe that that is what we have to do if the budget for incapacity benefit is not to run out of control and if taxpayers are to be assured that the money is being properly used.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has not answered my question. We accept the line that he is putting to us, but might he not achieve his objective of a fall in the number of claimants if unemployment fell substantially—back to the level of 1979, when the Tories took office?

Mr. Hague: If we agree, as I think we do, that some people are now receiving invalidity benefit because they are unemployed rather than because they are medically incapable of work, an improvement in employment— particularly one on the scale of the current improvement—would have an impact on the number of recipients of invalidity benefit as it is currently designed. We are discussing a long-term reform of the system, however, and we cannot anticipate every future movement in the economic cycle. We may be entering a period of much better prospects in the employment market, which will help the overall budget, but we cannot be sure that economic developments occurring several years later would not produce the contrary effect. We cannot base the future of the benefit on the calculations that the hon. Gentleman encourages me to make.
The detail of the test is laid out in part III of the general regulations, and was also set out in a report entitled "The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit", which we published in September. I do not propose to dwell on the detail of all the provisions in the regulations, which are explained in the guide "Notes on Regulations". The regulations describe the circumstances in which the two tests will apply, the information and evidence required in connection with the test and the structure and scoring system. There are, however, a number of provisions that I wish to cover in some detail.
Part II of the regulations introduces the exemptions from the test for claimants who are terminally ill or suffering from one of a specified list of serious conditions. The exemptions ensure that the most severely disabled— in whose cases incapacity for work can never be in doubt—will not be subject to the test. I make it clear that the exemptions cover people suffering from severe mental illness. It was always our intention to exempt them, but because of the varying nature of some of the conditions we originally intended to achieve that procedurally. We have now decided to put the matter beyond doubt, and to include severe mental illness in the list of exemptions. That is why we withdrew the original draft of the regulations and submitted new ones early this week.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I have already given way generously, and many hon. Members wish to speak. I may give way before the end of my speech, but I must make some progress; otherwise I shall take up a lot of time. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is anxious to speak.
Part II also makes provision for claimants to retain incapacity benefit while doing a limited amount of therapeutic work on doctor's advice, doing voluntary work or serving as a member of a disability appeal tribunal or the Disability Allowance Advisory Board. We have made arrangements to ensure that the hours limit


does not apply to certain people undertaking therapeutic work, and that when the limit does apply it can be averaged over a number of weeks. I know that those arrangements have been welcomed by hon. Members and by many people outside the House who have worked actively for the introduction of such provisions. With the associated improvements in disability working allowance, they demonstrate our desire to provide help for those who want to try to return to work.
Much concern has been expressed, in the House and elsewhere, about the potential for a "black hole" or "twilight zone", as some have called it, between incapacity benefits and benefits for the unemployed. I wish to reassure the House on that. The threshold for benefit in the new all work test is not the point at which a person can do no work at all; it is the point at which a person should not be expected to work. We all know of people who are blind or use a wheelchair, but who are perfectly capable of, and do, full-time work. We do not think that those people should be required to register for work if they need to claim social security benefits. We think it important, however, that disabled people should have a choice: there will be special arrangements to ensure that people who are judged incapable of work by the test, but who choose to register as unemployed, can be deemed capable.
Let me reassure the House that a decision on capacity will apply across the social security system. If a person is judged capable by the new test and then chooses to register as unemployed, the adjudication officer in the Employment Service cannot then decide that that person is not capable of work. A claimant must, of course, be available for and actively seeking work to qualify for unemployment benefits. That does not mean that claimants must be able to do every possible type of job; minor impairments that restrict ability will be recognised within the system and accepted by the adjudication officer. Everyone looking for work will be offered an initial in-depth interview with an Employment Service client adviser. A person who had some difficulty walking, for example, would not be expected to take a job as a postman.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister. Before he leaves the subject of this complicated series of procedures, may I take him back to the question of definitions? What is the definition of severe mental illness? Would, for example, a schizophrenic who could not get a job because employers—regrettably—treat such people as unemployable be considered to have passed the test? How are such people expected to find their way through the reams of regulations that the Minister has described?

Mr. Hague: The severity of such conditions can differ greatly from case to case, but those concerned must be diagnosed as suffering from a severe mental illness. I do not think that we shall encounter any difficulties, because those people will be exempted from many of the arrangements; and procedures have been carefully set out for people who suffer from mental illnesses but do not fall into that category, so that they are properly and sympathetically assessed.
Our overriding aim is to ensure that no one on sickness or invalidity benefit will experience a reduction in benefit at the point of change. When incapacity benefit is introduced on 13 April, existing sickness and invalidity benefit claimants will be transferred to short-term and long-term incapacity benefit respectively. Claimants will retain entitlements to allowances paid under the sickness benefit and invalidity benefit schemes. For those who were in receipt of invalidity benefit, the benefit will continue to be upgraded annually, with the exception of the earnings-related additional pension, which will be frozen. In addition, the incapacity benefit paid to those who were in receipt of invalidity benefit will not be subject to income tax.
The regulations provide for the entitlements of nearly 2 million people. They are necessarily very technical and complex, to ensure that there are no cash losers when incapacity benefit is introduced. Part VI of the regulations contains provisions for the new all work test of incapacity for work to be applied to existing cases.
The process will take place over a ? period of two to three years. It would not be right to exempt all existing cases from the test when there is widespread concern that some people are capable of work and should not be receiving invalidity benefit. Those people are in the minority, and the new test will identify such cases fairly.
The new arrangements may create anxiety among people currently on invalidity benefit who are genuinely unable to work because of their medical condition. Some have been on the benefit for many years. Let me reassure them. Regulation 31 introduces an exemption from the test for existing claimants continuously in receipt of invalidity benefit since 1 December 1993—the date on which the changes were announced—and aged 58 or over on the day on which the new benefit comes into force. That is in addition to the exemptions from the test that are set out in the general regulations, to which I have already referred.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hague: I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Duncan: Does not the introduction of the all work test allow my hon. Friend to give some reassurance to general practitioners who, in the past, were the unfortunate judges of whether their patients should be eligible for benefit? The all work test is a great improvement on the previous system.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current test has placed GPs in an invidious position on many occasions; under the new system, their views and information will still be taken very much into account, but they will no longer be in that difficult position.
I was referring to the exemptions from the test set out in the regulations. The exemption in regulation 31 of the transitional regulations reflects our recognition that loss of benefit would inevitably cause greater difficulties for people who are near to pension age. In choosing the age of 58, however, we also had to take account of the growth in the number of people aged over 50 who were receiving invalidity benefit, and the evidence that the benefit was being paid to some who were not medically incapable of work.
Nearly 50 per cent, of existing claimants will not be subject to the new test. Of those who do take it, we believe that the majority will satisfy it. We shall ensure that no one will be found capable of work by the new test without first having had, or been offered, a medical examination by a Benefits Agency medical services doctor. There will be, of course, a right of appeal against any decision to disallow benefit after the application of the new test. In any appeal where the all work test is in question, the social security appeal tribunal will be assisted by an independent medical assessor. Those facts should help to reassure people who are currently on invalidity benefit and who are genuinely incapable of work.
The reforms that we have introduced represent a major change to the way in which we make provision for people who are incapable of work. Implementing such a change is a major undertaking involving complex computer programmes, thousands of civil servants and hundreds of departmental doctors. However, it also involves about 2 million of our fellow citizens.
I wish to emphasise the Government's continuing commitment to a contributory, income-replacement benefit, paid to those who are unable to work because of sickness or disability. It is only by focusing resources on those people who need them most that we can provide an affordable system that will be sustainable into the next century. The regulations before us today would ensure that that aim and commitment can be met and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Opposition social security ranks often labour apparently in vain. Therefore, I shall allow myself a small indulgence and congratulate my hon. Friends who serve on the Committee considering the Jobseekers Bill who today achieved a concession from the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) moved an amendment to ensure that carers in receipt of invalid care allowance will get credits so that when they cease caring they will almost certainly be entitled to the—admittedly rather reduced—jobseeker's allowance. Carer groups have been pressing for that concession for a long time, so I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on their success.
The regulations deal with an area of real difficulty. I am not one of those who would pretend that it is a simple matter to strike the right balance. It is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into the matter, not just in the Department—although it has reached some mistaken conclusions—but among the many groups of people who have been involved in the consultations and debates.
I hope that the Minister will not make the mistake of assuming that because people of genuine expertise and good will have had the staying power to remain in the panel system that reviews these matters—despite the fact that they might have fundamental disagreements with it— in the hope that they might at least wring some improvements out of the process, that in some way means that they endorse the principle of what we are discussing. I hope that the Minister understands and accepts that point.
One of the problems with regulations is that they come on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. All that we can do tonight is to state our concerns during the debate and underline the strength of them in the Lobbies. In doing so, we are reflecting a good deal of unhappiness and the wide sweep of informed opinion.
The simple starting point—I speak only for myself—is the belief that the change has been designed purely to exclude from benefit people who have previously enjoyed entitlement to it. In some cases, there will be victims who should not be victims. The casualty list will be lengthy and the wrong people will be on it. If we look objectively, there can be no argument about that.
The Minister and I are at one on some of the figures; it is always satisfying to be able to quote his figures for the scale of the problem. Over the next two years some 220,000 people currently receiving invalidity benefit will lose entitlement because they do not measure up to the new incapacity test. Some 55,000 new claimants over the same period will fail the test, although they probably would have been entitled to invalidity .benefit under the present regulations.
I say genuinely to the Minister that I am not trying to raise unnecessary fears, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal of anxiety about this matter. Although I get many letters to which I think I can honestly respond that I believe it unlikely that the right to benefit is threatened, there are many cases where I cannot do that. I know from personal experience that the issue is causing a great deal of worry and anxiety.
I recognise that the exemptions are important. The last figure I was given for that was 850,000.1 accept that that represents a substantial and important group of people. A large number of people aged over 58 in receipt of invalidity benefit on 1 December 1993—on an almost continuous, if not continuous, basis—will be relieved of a great deal of worry. There are other specialist groups and I welcome their inclusion, but the figures that I have just quoted will not entirely relieve public anxiety and concern.

Mr. Rowlands: If some of the guesstimates are right, the problems could be much larger than we already fear. One local assessment is that only about one third of those currently in receipt of invalidity benefit are aged 58 and over. I find difficulty in reconciling that figure with the claim that about half the recipients of invalidity benefit will be excluded from the process.

Mr. Dewar: There is a great deal of room for debate, discussion and local variation in the process. We will not know all the results until the system shakes down and we can call on what I fear will be bitter experience. My hon. Friend represents a south Wales constituency and I suspect that there are very specific problems in that area. One hon. Member earlier quoted the figure of 160,000 people on invalidity benefit; figures I have been given suggest the number to be nearer 175,000. Whichever figure is right, it is well above what we would usually expect on a population-per capita basis. We are all aware of the problems of the mining industry, which is a particular characteristic of people on invalidity benefit in my hon. Friend's area.
The test is meant to be a narrow gate. It is easy to mock it and its descriptors; it is easy to make fun of the new numerical totting up system. I do not want to do that, but there are problems. For example, I find it rather quaint


that we are told that if someone cannot raise one arm above his head to reach for something, he is entitled to no points on the scoring system. If someone has no problem with reaching, not surprisingly he is entitled to no points on the scoring system. That appears to be redundant information and there are other similar examples.
However, rather than making fun I believe it to be more important to examine the general principle. We are concerned that there is a confusion between capacity for work and a loss of facility. Of course, medical condition is an important component, but the Government admit that other matters are also important—for example, age. Research produced by the Department suggests that once someone has passed 50, the aging process becomes a conditioning and important practical factor. I would be prepared to give personal evidence about that, as, no doubt, would some of my contemporaries.
The selection of the age of 58 is arbitrary. It was plucked out the air for no obvious reason. Nevertheless, age is a factor. Also, if there is no work that a person can reasonably be expected to do, in the real and practical world that factor cannot be entirely ignored.
There is still great concern about whether the test will be sufficiently sensitive and flexible to take account of diseases where remission is a problem or where pain is a presenting problem. There are the problems of describing severe as distinct from other forms of mental disability.
There are hon. Members in the Chamber who took part effectively in the Second Reading debate. I remember being annoyed when the Secretary of State—who is something of a stranger to our debates these days—said:
Our new test has already been welcomed."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol.236, c. 38.]
He managed to give the impression that if people were not exactly burning bonfires outside the offices of Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group and other such organisations, they were near to that. It was not a fair impression.
The Secretary of State prayed in aid one witness, the National Back Pain Association. It had happened to write to him and he had interpreted its views as being very much in favour of tests. As the association was the one example that the Secretary of State gave, I took the trouble to contact it a couple of days ago. It could hardly be described as a hostile witness, given that it was the only friend that could be produced in court on the original occasion. It may interest the Minister to know—it is not the most stringent of criticisms, but it is interesting given the source—that the association
is concerned as to how the assessors will measure pain as a functional limiter. We feel that many chronic back pain sufferers will have difficulty in sustaining the level of activity necessary to return to work—pain is invisible and not always observable. A back pain sufferer could perform the test satisfactorily but at what cost and is it sustainable?
I make that point because it is typical of many of the points that have been made by organisations with experience in the matter. I was glad, therefore, to return to them for further thoughts. I remind the Minister that, despite the nice ruled lines and dried ink, and the dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's in the Department, genuine concern still exists outside in the real world.
One should not argue these matters in terms of hard cases. I became a little irritated—I am sure that some hon. Members here will remember it—with the level of some

of the debate on Second Reading of the Jobseekers Bill. The Secretary of State told us about the case of someone on invalidity benefit being caught cleaning the windows of the Benefits Agency office from which he received his benefit. We were told about javelin contest winners who were on invalidity benefit. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) conclusively established the Government's case with the rather curious fact that the man who waved the flag at the Grand National was on invalidity benefit. I do not think that any of that does any service to these difficult issues.
No doubt exists that one of the reasons why we are in this position is that the Government believe that the health of the nation is improving and that, therefore, we should be able to do without many of the people on invalidity benefit. The famous phrase from the Prime Minister was that the figures "beggar" belief. Complicated attempts were made to suggest that, because the number of peptic ulcers in society had halved, a similar reduction should be seen in invalidity benefit. I remember having exchanges with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) about the Policy Studies Institute report.
To remind the House, it is interesting that the institute's analysis was that about 29 per cent. of the increase in the number of people on invalidity benefit arose because pensioners were staying on invalidity benefit after retirement age to enjoy the fact that it was tax free; if they took the same money under pension eligibility, it would be taxed. Most hon. Members with the persistence to stay for the debate will know that that choice has been removed in the legislation, and that many pensioners will have increased tax bills as a result. No doubt the Government will say that they have reduced invalidity benefit figures substantially because those people will have lost that right. Another 16 per cent, of the increase was due to the increase in the number of women in the labour market. Those factors have nothing to do with fraud or abuse. I hope that the Government accept that.
One of my worries relates to the problem of the black hole or twilight zone, as I think the Minister called it. Inevitably, a large number of people will be displaced. They will become dependants in their own homes. They will live on savings, if they have any. If they do not, they will be thrown on to non-contributory jobseeker's allowance, or, before that comes into being, on to income support. The Government's current estimates are that in 1995–96, 95,000 people will be displaced from invalidity benefit by the changes. In 1996–97, the figure will be 190,000 in 1996–97. Those people will have to sign on. Almost inevitably, they will end up on means-tested benefits because they are unlikely to have a contributions record that will allow them, even for the six months, to claim what is left of jobseeker's allowance.
The Government have been critical of the growth in means-tested benefits and of the damage and dangers of those benefits. I find it a strange inconsistency that so much of what they are introducing in terms of incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance will significantly force up the number of people on means-tested benefits. More important, it will create in many communities a bitterness, a feeling of failure and a hopelessness, which will not be good for morale, and which will lead to many personal problems.
I think too of single men who may be especially vulnerable—or single women; but let us take single men for the example. If they are on their own, they may have


to fall back on basic income support. They will be in a position that is an odd reversal of the normal career because they will be on basic income support for 10 or perhaps 12 years and their income will improve only when they retire, because at least they will then have the pensioner's premium. For that long period, we are creating a substantial social problem and making no attempts to deal or to wrestle with it.
May I turn briefly, as I recognise that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, to the interesting and important point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). Administration has been the bugbear of much of the change in the social security sector. I am concerned about some of the figures that are already beginning to emerge because of the changes made in the administration of incapacity benefit. To illustrate that theme, I want to use the example of growth in appeals.
To take one criteria, let us consider what has happened since 1993. The House will remember that, in that year, the Government announced that there would be improvements—an interesting term—in medical control arrangements and that they hoped to save £240 million over a two-year period. In 1991, 4,852 appeals were decided and the number rose in 1992 to 53,088. In 1993, when the new regime was introduced, the number jumped to 9,422. The latest figures show that, in the first quarter of 1994, the number continued to grow, with 4,005 appeals decided. I know that this matter is open to argument about interpretation, but the success rate of appellants has increased from 49.6 per cent, at the beginning of the period to which I referred, to 58 per cent. It is worth remembering that, back in 1979, it was 21 per cent. There is a tale there and some deductions can be drawn from it.
It is not just the past trend that is worrying; the continuation and perhaps dramatic acceleration of that trend also worries many of my colleagues. Just before I came into the Chamber, I obtained a briefing note from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It said that its offices in many parts of the country were being inundated with people who were worried about their position vis a vis the changes that have not yet come into effect. A real danger exists of administrative chaos.
In 1993—these are the most recent figures that I could find that have a statistical base—23,105 appeals on incapacity benefit were lodged. The Minister told me the other day that he was expecting 140,000 in 1995–96. That is a quantum leap. I know that he will say that the Government have put more money and resources into the medical advisory service; he will tell us that they are all geared up to deal with it. I hope that he does not think that I am a cynic, but if he is right in his expectations— on all experience, he is probably in the right ball park— the system will seize up under that strain and under the other administrative problems that are reflected in the expected dramatic jump from 23,000 to 140,000. That is a measure of the problems that we may face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the nightmare of the introduction of the disability living allowance. We must be concerned about what is happening.

Mr. Miller: Did the Minister in the same conversation tell my hon. Friend the expected cost of the increased volume of appeals? I should imagine that it will be horrendous.

Mr. Dewar: I cannot tell my hon. Friend. I should be able to give him some relevant information but I have forgotten it. I myself received an answer to the effect that the added expenditure on the Benefits Agency's medical service was, I think, £3 million or £4 million. The Minister may be able to help later. In any event, I hope that I have made the point fairly.
When I was first involved in these debates—they seemed to have begun long ago—I referred to a "petty change" producing "minimum savings" for the Government. I was rapped over the knuckles by the Secretary of State on Second Reading of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994. He compared my approach to that of the late John Smith who had launched a fierce attack on the whole issue. As we now know, John Smith was right and the rap on my knuckles was well justified but no one who now considers the scale of the financial switch and the number of people who will be displaced could possibly argue that it is a petty change. It is a major change and one which I think will cause major problems for the Government.
Let us consider the impact of the test alone, leaving aside the difference in benefit levels. The savings are expected to be £210 million in 1995–96, rising to £700 million in 1996–97 and to £1 billion in 1997–98. That is a great deal of money to take out of this particular budget.
The test must be seen as part of a package. How will that package be perceived by the public? There are other adjustments involving many examples of how the rate of benefit will be lowered for those who are on the new incapacity benefit as against those who remain on invalidity benefit—the basic rate will be lower between 29 and 52 weeks, the age-related increases will no longer exist and the adult dependency increases will be lower in the middle period and, even when restored after 52 weeks, will be available only to those looking after children or who are over 60. The many changes will be noticed because people notice nothing more particularly than the shortage of the pennies that they want to count in their purse or pocket. My fear is that other people's fears are real and growing. One tries to reassure but it is often difficult.
I happened to be in south Wales last night—as hon. Members can probably imagine, it was rather quiet. I attended a public meeting and was struck by the fact that, at the end, more people came to me to discuss their worries about incapacity benefit and the changes than asked questions about something which to an observer would have been the big issue of the meeting which, the Minister will not be surprised to know, was the Child Support Agency.
I fear that there may be a parallel between the CSA and incapacity benefit. The trouble with the CSA is that it is perceived to be unfair and unjust. Despite all that the Minister has said, I believe that there is a real danger that the new incapacity benefit system will in the end be seen as unfair and unjust.
The Minister will no doubt say that once the transitional arrangement has run its course and the reviews have all been carried out there will be no unfairness, but the answer that he will receive is that it is very little consolation to be told that the system is uniformly unfair, which I think is how people will regard it. In other respects, it will be seen as arbitrary as well as unfair. It will be easy to find two applicants in the same town who are comparable in terms of finance, family circumstances, physical disability and loss of faculties but who may receive different levels of benefit because of the date of their first application. Of course, they will also be subject to dramatically different tax treatment. That is not a happy prospect and I think that the Minister has greatly underestimated the problems and trouble that it will produce.
When the system is fully operational, we shall be taking a total of £1.5 billion from the present budget. It cannot be a painless process because it is not simply a matter of administrative reform. Many people will be hit, and hit hard. It can only reinforce the Government's reputation, of which they should not be proud, for introducing change that is unrelated to the needs of the people whom the system is supposed to be helping.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State, who is not here today, said:
The Bill is not an attack on the sick and disabled; it is the very reverse. It is designed to protect their benefit against those who abuse it."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol.236, c.35.]
I do not believe that abuse is the test, but, in any event, very few people will agree with the sentiment that the Act is a way to protect and help the sick and disabled. Once we have experienced the Act, no one will believe it. I predict that Ministers will have to rethink their position and I hope that they will be prepared do so before too much damage is done.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) reminded us of the Second Reading debate on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 just over a year ago on 24 January 1994. Looking back at Hansard, I noted with some embarrassment that I had made an inordinately long speech, so I shall not today rehearse in detail all the reasons why I am unhappy about this measure and the regulations that flow from it, which we are now invited to approve.
I make no complaint about—indeed, I applaud—the Government's determination to retrieve and bring back into balance our public finances. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on the progress that he has already made. What I cannot, however, approve is the fact that the cost of continuing this process should be borne by members of our society whom we must recognise as disadvantaged and in need of our help. Whatever the reasons may have been, it was certainly not the fault of the long-term sick and disabled that in the second half of the 1980s we allowed expenditure and inflation to take off; nor was it their fault that we then deflated the economy so severely and ran up the borrowing requirement.
Under this legislation, it is people who should have a special claim on public support who are asked to make the biggest sacrifice relative to their means and opportunities. The device whereby people are to be

selected to make this sacrifice—the so-called "all work test"—is a contrivance that I cannot believe satisfies the rigorous and fastidious intellects of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As I have argued before, the proposition that there can be an objective medical test of capacity for work—for all work—is fundamentally misconceived.
My right hon. and hon. Friends know very well that an individual may be capable of some kinds of work and not others. They know that a person's capacity for work is a function not only of his state of health but of factors such as education, training, skills, experience and, of course, the jobs on offer and their accessibility. All those factors should be weighed together, as they have been since the Conservative Government introduced invalidity benefit in 1971.
The notion of an all work test is a fig leaf for the Treasury's determination, regardless of near-term distress or long-term cost, to cut planned expenditure. I am not interested in—I am deeply opposed to—gaining tax cuts at the expense of the long-term sick and disabled. I suspect that many voters share my view.
The long-term sick and disabled are not very good at organising protests and making their voices heard. The media gave no coverage at all to the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill when it was going through Parliament, yet the Act and the regulations are major legislation in terms of their fiscal and human implications. The Government expect to take £410 million from the social security budget in the forthcoming year and £1,720 million by 1997–98 by dint of, among other things, excluding from incapacity benefit 220,000 people who at present can claim invalidity benefit.
Let us be clear about the fact that these people are disadvantaged. A few claimants may indeed be abusing the system, and I do not condone that. But the Department's own research reveals that by far the greater number are poor and—surely my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree—deserving.
Under the medical test which we are asked to approve, one has to score 15 points to qualify for incapacity benefit. Someone who is partially sighted and cannot see well enough, even when wearing spectacles, to discern a friend on the other side of the room, scores 12. If she lives in a rural area without buses, she certainly could not drive to work. She would receive invalidity benefit now, but if she were under 58, she would not receive incapacity benefit under the new system.
A person with myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—who has problems with gross and fine motor control, cannot bend down and then straighten after picking something up, and cannot tie his shoelace scores only 13 and does not qualify. It used to be thought that polio and multiple sclerosis were hysterical conditions. Is that still the view of the Department and the Benefits Agency medical service on ME?
What clarification has been given, to enable us to understand the implications of our vote this evening, as to the calibration under the test of cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis? Which sufferers from those conditions will qualify for incapacity benefit and which will not? The: principle of objectivity presumably means having the facts on the table.
I hope that the House will tolerate my once again quoting Dickens, because he would undoubtedly have had something to say about the all work test and the 80 experts whom my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned. The House will remember chapter two of "Hard Times":
Thomas Gradgrind ‖ A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over … With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, Sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic.
There was also Mr. Gradgrind's utilitarian colleague:
A mighty man at cutting and drying, he was; a government officer.
The Department of Social Security certainly produces facts. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his willingness to publish research even when the findings do not validate his policy. Research report 20, a longitudinal study of new recipients of invalidity benefit by Bob Erens and Deborah Ghate, demonstrated that the great majority of new recipients of invalidity benefit were poor and earned in their last job, in 1991 or 1992, between £2 and £5 an hour. They were likely to have been manual workers. The most common causes of their invalidity were industrial diseases and other work-related factors. Only 17 per cent, of them had stayed in full-time education beyond the age of 16, and 48 per cent, had no educational qualifications at all. Once over 50 years old, their chances of returning to employment were very poor indeed.
Those recipients of invalidity benefit are the victims not only of injury and ill health but of recession—all too often, people in poor health are the first to be made redundant—and economic change. Where are the jobs in today's economy for people in their 50s with little education, few skills and a poor health record? They have paid national insurance contributions to provide precisely for the contingency in which they find themselves. Indeed, my right hon. and hon. Friends and the House have recently increased the contributions of those people by 10 per cent; yet, by way of these regulations, we would lessen or even remove that benefit altogether. It is not a good thing to do.
My hon. Friends are invited to believe that invalidity benefit has been a wholesale rip-off. It is pointed out, in the relentless repetition of propaganda—my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said it again this afternoon—that the cost of invalidity benefit has been soaring, even as the health of the nation has been improving; so, we are supposed to conclude, claimants have been swinging the lead.
I am glad that, overall, the health of the nation has been improving, but averages are deceptive, as we might have been told in an interesting essay, had it not failed to appear in the new edition of Social Trends, and as we have just been told by the school of advanced urban studies in Bristol. The health of the nation is chequered geographically and correlates with the unevenness of socio-economic factors. Poorer people, particularly in the older, industrial areas, experience worse health.
The growth in claims, as the hon. Member for Garscadden reminded us, has been analysed by the Policy Studies Institute. It found, as the hon. Gentleman said,

that 29 per cent, came from claimants choosing invalidity benefit rather than the pension, as they were entitled to do; 16 per cent, from the increase in women in the labour market paying national insurance contributions; and 13 per cent, from the increase in disabled people in relevant age groups. Some 42 per cent, was due to the growth in the number of genuinely disabled people. The key to that is that they could not get off benefit because there were no jobs for people with their disabilities and skills, or lack of skills. There was no evidence to suggest that they did not want to be in work. Their benefits were a poor substitute for their earnings. The system has provided no feather bed for idleness. Four out of five claims questioned by officials of the Benefits Agency medical service were, indeed, made by people who were incapable of work.
What will happen to the existing claimants of invalidity benefit? The most severely ill have rightly and properly been exempted from the test. My right hon. Friend is allowing recipients aged 58 and over to be passported through to incapacity benefit. However, he estimates that about 220,000 people will be found to be capable of work over the next two years.
I welcome his assurances that there will be a right of appeal, that those who are found capable of work and decide to register as unemployed will have a full advisory interview and receive special guidance and help, and that additional places on programmes are being funded with extra resources given to the Employment Service and to the placing assessment and counselling service.
To do all that is, of course, right, but I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think carefully and sympathetically about the requirements under the rules of the job seeker's allowance for people suffering from long-term sickness and disability—conditions all too real, although not severe enough to score 15 points—and especially older people. I apprehend that only a fortunate few—very few—will get jobs. It may take them a long time.
Only 41 per cent, of all men aged between 55 and 64 are in employment. The long-term sick and disabled will be competing with people in good health for jobs which, despite all the Government's good efforts to promote job creation, are far too scarce. Let us please refrain from imposing insensitive requirements on them, which will be hard for them to bear, through jobseekers' directions. Let us think very carefully about what requirements in terms of actively seeking work ought to be imposed on the long-term sick and disabled. Let us be as positive as we can, for example, in accommodating a commitment to voluntary work, which many people with a degree of disability will willingly and most valuably undertake on a part-time and flexible basis.
What about the appreciable number of people who will not qualify for incapacity, but who, because of their disability, will not be able to satisfy the more rigorous qualifying conditions for the jobseeker's allowance? My hon. Friend the Minister sought to offer reassurance, but I remain fearful that some—too many—will disappear into the proverbial black hole which he mentioned. It would not be acceptable were that to happen.
Those people are the victims of circumstances beyond their control. They have been unlucky in their health. They have been dispossessed of work opportunities by the colossal changes wrought by technology and globalisation, the restructuring of the British economy and


the widening of inequalities in our society. But they are members of our society, fragmented though it is, and we cannot wash our hands of them. We should not for a moment wish to do so or consider doing so. It is fine for the Conservative party to encourage talent and success, but it can be no part of our ideology—I am sure that it is no part of my lion. Friend the Minister's ideology—to let the devil take the hindmost. We cannot neglect the responsibility articulated by the Tory party long ago to elevate the condition of the people—all the people. We must not abandon those who, under the present proposals, will lose entitlement to benefit.
At a cost that we could well afford, we could passport through from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit all existing claimants over the age of 50. In a parliamentary answer on Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister of State told me that it would cost an extra £45 million in 1995–96 if all claimants over 50 were exempted from the test on the same basis as claimants aged over 58. My right hon. Friends should soften their rigour to that extent. Our economy is quite strong enough to sustain that concession. If they are unwilling to do that, they can at least extend the exemption to people aged over 55—the people who we know have the poorest prospects of finding work—for a cost of only £15 million.
The greater the insecurity of the world in which we live, the more we have a duty to offer care to the vulnerable. That should be a principle common to all parties in the House. As it is, the regulations express a policy which cold-shoulders the vulnerable and I cannot support them.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a rare, if not unique, occasion for the Member of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to rise and say that he rather wished that he had made the speech that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) just made. It was a privilege to listen to the sensitivity combined with close reasoning that the hon. Gentleman brought to the debate.
I do not want to engage in a general debate. I want to tell the Minister what I fear will happen in the communities that I represent as a result of the proposed changes. I seek a basic, simple and fundamental assurance from the Minister and I hope that he will be able to respond to my comments at the end of the debate.
Irrespective of the national average figures, the Welsh figures, and particularly the figures for the communities that I represent, are of a different order from those that were presented to the House as the norm. According to written parliamentary answers, 10 per cent, of the male population of working age in Wales receives invalidity benefit. That is 2 per cent, higher than in any region in England.
In addition, the 1991 census figures revealed a frightening, disturbing and continuing pattern of ill health in households in the valleys constituencies. Of the top 12 constituencies with the highest ratio of limiting long-term illness in households, 10 are south Wales constituencies. They have the highest ratios in the country. Poignantly, the constituency at the bottom of that league is Wokingham, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales.
That gulf is a sad comment on us all. After 50 years of post-war effort, there is still an enormous gulf—which is partly historic and continuing—in respect of the social divisions reflected in the figures to which I referred and in the number of recipients of invalidity benefit.
I am most concerned about the figures. I am worried that they are guesstimates. I do not know on what they are based. As I understand it, the Minister rested his case on the fact that half the existing recipients will be excluded from the process. One of the problems is that benefit districts in relation to invalidity benefit do not coincide with constituencies or local authority districts. However, I understand that in respect of the benefit district area that covers my constituency and beyond it— the Merthyr, Cynon and Rhymney district—24,000 people receive invalidity benefit. I am literate, I hope, but I am not very numerate. I am therefore worried about the figures and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm them.
If 24,000 people are in receipt of invalidity benefit in that benefit district, that represents a much higher percentage of the population of working age in receipt of that benefit than any of the averages about which we are talking. The Welsh average is between 7 and 10 per cent., but the percentage in that benefit district is infinitely higher. A much higher percentage of the people in the area that I represent receives invalidity benefit than the Welsh or English averages.
As I understand it, only about 8,000 of those 24,000 people are aged 58 or over; that means that one third would be excluded from the total. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm my figures. In addition, we must consider those who would be excluded who would qualify under the exemptions; they would account for 16,000 of the 24,000. I have great difficulty in believing that an additional 4,000 fall into that category. That would mean that half the recipients in my area were exempt.
I hope that I am wrong. I hope that the figures can be qualified, altered and changed in a way that allows me to go home and tell the communities which I represent that at least the Minister is arguing that half the existing invalidity beneficiaries in my areas would be excluded from the process. At the moment, on the guesstimates, I believe that rather fewer than half—and perhaps significantly fewer than half—would be excluded.
I want now to consider the implications of a written answer that the Minister sent me about where the savings are to be made. In the reply, it was admitted that 41 per cent, of this year's savings, and 48 per cent, of next year's savings—we are talking about huge figures—are to come from disallowing existing recipients from the benefit. The savings will not be made as a result of new claimants or tax changes. In year two, 48 per cent, of the savings will result from withdrawing and refusing benefit in respect of those who are already receiving it. By any standards, that is a huge withdrawal of financial support from families and communities.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon took us back to Dickens. I do not want to go back even to the 1930s. The qualitative difference between recession 1930s-style and recession 1980s-style in Merthyr Tydfil is that we still managed to spend in the 1980s. Consumption collapsed in the 1930s and that is what led to the absolute deprivation of the 1930s.
The relative impact of the 1980s recession was cushioned in post-war Merthyr Tydfil, which had enjoyed a reasonable degree of permanent or full-time employment for the lifetime of one generation, and people had qualified for occupational pensions and for contributory benefits. When the redundancies occurred in the 1980s, with the double whammy of the collapse of manufacturing and mining, there was, fortunately, a cushion of occupational pension rights, redundancy rights, payments rights and contributory benefits rights for a generation of people who had been "shaken out" of the economy.
In many respects, the figures conceal the true depth of economic inactivity. In my area, about 40 per cent, of men of working age are economically inactive. About 20 per cent, of them are registered as unemployed—depending on which bands we consider. If the 1991 census figures are to be believed, another 20 per cent, are economically inactive. Within that 20 per cent, are a very large number of people who receive invalidity benefit.
We are not talking about taking £1 or £2 away from people; we are talking about taking £60, £70, £80, £90 or £120 from people, because the benefit is earnings related. It is related to one's contributions and to one's earnings. We are talking about taking between £60 and £120 a week from the family budget. Almost at a stroke, the decision of an adjudication officer will mean that those people will spend months trying to appeal against the loss of benefit.
Let us take a conservative estimate, and say that perhaps 5,000 of the 24,000 people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit lose that benefit within the next two years as a result of the changes. If those people lose on average some £70 a week, we are talking about a loss in the purchasing power of the local economy of £15 million to £18 million a year. There will be serious consequential effects, not only to individual families but to the prosperity of the whole economy.
The contributory benefits which came as a result of the reasonably permanent full employment which lasted from the late 1940s through into the 1970s saved local economies and communities of the kind and character I represented during the 1980s. Much of that money was immediately recycled back into the local economy.
I can think of many families where the man or woman who is in receipt of invalidity benefit probably props up an unemployed son, daughter or married couple for insurance, clothing and a host of the other expenditures which occur in relatively close-knit communities of the kind I represent. Among those communities, invalidity benefit has played a very important social and economic part. Withdrawal of the benefit on the scale proposed worries me, as it could have a serious effect on not only individual families but the collective purchasing power of the community.
I do not believe that Ministers have thought the measure through. They will say to me that people can apply for unemployment benefit, the new jobseeker's allowance or income support. I suspect that a large proportion of those who lose benefit will be people in their 50s who, because of redundancy, have left work. They will not have made the contributions necessary for them to be able to claim unemployment benefit, or the job seeker's allowance from next year. They may not be able to claim income support either, because they have modest

lump sums left over from their redundancy money and a small occupational pension which takes them outside the limit. They will, therefore, not only lose the benefit but not qualify for any other benefit.
Should those people bother to sign on for the jobseeker's allowance? They will have to do so to keep their credits for their pensions, and they will have to try to fill the hole left by the loss of benefit. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said forcefully, they will have to compete for the same pathetic collection of jobs with younger adults and the long-term unemployed, of whom we have a rather large percentage. People in their mid-50s who have a disability of one kind or another and who will be shaken out by the new test will be competing for the pathetic, poorly paid jobs available at my local jobcentre. Let me tell the Minister what I am talking about. Someone brought to my attention a job as a security guard that was advertised as paying
£1.80 an hour—bring your own dog".
We are talking about pathetic rates of pay, and I am not exaggerating.
I do not understand where the national income averages come from, as I have searched in vain through the jobs advertised in the local newspapers for one salary which matches the average income. A considerable differential in earnings has been occurring during the past decade in communities such as mine.
The Secretary of State for Social Security gave a most interesting and, I thought, sensitive lecture in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago, in which he drew attention to the social consequences of what he called the disparity of earnings. He was talking about the social consequences of that disparity, while at the same time introducing regulations which will drive thousands of people in their mid-50s into the labour market to compete with other adults and young unemployed people who have been waiting and hoping for a job.

Mr. Duncan: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I am perplexed. He seems to be in favour of keeping those people on benefit, rather than letting them compete in the labour market. Even if that is not his view—frankly, it seems that it is— he also seems to be at odds with the Disability Discrimination Bill, which wishes not to discriminate against such people in their search for a job.

Mr. Rowlands: One consequence of the measure will be to drive people who had virtually accepted that they were in retirement—men and women of about 57—and who have been in receipt of invalidity benefit for two or three years back into the labour market. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made an effective intervention, when he described what happened during the 1980s. The Government understood and approved of invalidity benefit as being part and parcel of a whole process which allowed people almost to go into semi-retirement in their mid-50s, rather than scrambling for a job that they were not fit enough to do. The Government are now bringing in a new objective test with a huge retrospective character which will force people back into the labour market.
I must tell the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that a large number of people in their mid to late-50s have accepted that they are unable or likely to go back into employment. The loss of benefit will force


them into the labour market. They will not feel deprived of their rights—that is the hon. Gentleman's argument— but they will most certainly feel deprived and angry as a result of the retrospective character of the test that is proposed in the regulations.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case against the measure. Does he accept that those people will also be angry when they find the levels of wages of the jobs for which they will be told to apply? Is he not making a strong case for a national minimum wage to end the obscenity of slave labour rates?

Mr. Rowlands: I shall not be tempted by that topic, as you might stop me if I pursued the argument of a minimum wage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We can have those arguments elsewhere on other occasions. I am simply trying to describe what I fear will be a consequence of the regulations, and the impact they will have on families and communities. I am also concerned about the impact which the measure will have on local purchasing power, which has sustained communities such as mine during two major recessions within a decade.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon produced some fascinating figures. He said that, for merely £45 million, the Government could exclude everybody over the age of 50. That is an astonishing figure. It may turn out to be incorrect and, in communities such a mine, we may find that the regulations have a disproportionate effect. We have heard the assuring figures that more than half the people concerned will be exempt and that the majority of them will have their benefit maintained. That brings us down to about a quarter of existing claimants losing their benefit, as opposed to the rather more serious figures which we fear. If our more worrying and draconian view of the regulations turns out to be true, will the Minister review them?
It was right and proper of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden to speak about the experiences of the Child Support Agency and the disability living allowance. We have been through those administrative problems, although we accept that Governments occasionally cannot analyse in detail what the direct consequences of their actions or legislation will be. I fear that the number who will lose benefit will be larger than the Minister suggested. My mental arithmetic worked out that he implied that only about a quarter of those currently in receipt of invalidity benefit would lose it. I hope that, if those figures turn out to be inaccurate during the next one or two years, he will promise to undertake a fundamental and urgent review. I also hope that we do not end up with people suffering as a result of the Government's economic mismanagement, as we fear.

Mr. Barry Field: I will not follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and his anecdotal evidence about the advertisement for a security guard which stated "Bring your own dog". It would be no good if it were my dog— his idea of intimidating an intruder is to lick him to death.
I shall be brief as I certainly do not have the depth of knowledge of my namesake on the Opposition Benches. First, I must declare an interest, which is not in the Register of Members' Interests, as I am the president of the Isle of Wight branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

My concern is that, although the pain, stress, fatigue and variability of the condition will be taken into account, the questionnaire to be completed before examination by a Benefits Agency doctor does not appear to provide for describing the effects of a variable condition such as MS, or for the effects of fatigue after performing some function.
Severe and progressive neurological diseases are exempt from all work tests. I want to know precisely how claimants who fall into exempt categories will be identified. As I am sure the Minister is aware, multiple sclerosis is a complex and unpredictable condition. It takes different forms, which include relapsing, remitting and chronic progression. Doctors are unable to provide a prognosis for the path that someone's MS will take, so how will agency staff determine whether a claimant's MS is severe or progressive enough to exempt them from the test? Will someone automatically fail if his or her MS is in remission at the time? Will the right of appeal be available for those who are not exempted, but who believe that they should be?
I broadly support the Government's thrust to reform social security legislation and this is an important part of the reform. I simply remind the House that one of our former Members of Parliament, Mr. Rob Hayward, was an MS sufferer. Happily, I understand that the condition was dormant and he fought the by-election in Christchurch. I am sure that among the fraternity of Members of Parliament no one would suggest that fighting a by-election would make one unfit for work, yet those of us who know about multiple sclerosis and are aware of the ways in which the disease can progress, know that it can suddenly accelerate and make someone incapable of work. I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding—in agreement, I hope.
Fatigue is also associated with that horrible disease. Those of us involved in the Multiple Sclerosis Society hope that, before long, someone will not only discover the reasons for this terrible disease but a cure—the same is true of cancer. In the mean time, I hope that when I vote with the Government tonight I can do so knowing that the Minister will keep a careful eye on this matter. All our regulations and statutes—everything that the House does with the printed word—have to be in black and white, but I hope that the Minister will remember these few words of mine and will ensure that the regulations are implemented with a sensitive and human touch.

Ms Liz Lynne: As other hon. Members have said, the medical test for incapacity benefit is crude and unfair. It is crude because it tests functional ability only and a task that is done once, not over and over again, which is what many people have to do when they are employed.
As has been said, we need a proper definition of work—the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) mentioned that. I know that the other place tried to change the ruling. I want the legislation to include the definition of work used by the private insurance industry:
that to which someone is suited by education, training and experience.
The Bill would benefit from the inclusion of that definition, but the Lords amendment was defeated by 124 votes to 107.
The Bill is also unfair because people have been paying national insurance contributions. The benefit is based on one's national insurance contribution record, which is extremely important—as it is with the jobseeker's allowance. People are being asked to pay more national insurance, but services are being cut and they are receiving less in benefits.
The Bill is also unfair because the Government are changing the rules and people will get less money than they do at present. It will be the same for the first 28 weeks—£43.45 a week—but, between 28 and 52 weeks, invalidity benefit is £57.60, whereas incapacity benefit will be £52.50. That is a saving of £5.10. The measure is a means to claw back tiny amounts to try to save the Treasury money, but when one adds it all together, it amounts to a considerable sum.
The full rate will be payable after 52 weeks and the terminally ill will not be included, for which I am grateful. The Government are also clawing back money from age allowance and dependence allowance, and so it goes on. They are reducing the age bands from three to two and the full rate will be payable after 52 weeks and not 28. At present, the under-40s receive an extra £12.50, those between 40 and 49 an extra £7.60, and those between 50 and 60, an extra £3.60. With incapacity benefit and the change to two bands, the under-35s will receive £12.15 extra, and those between 35 and 45, an extra £6.10. There will be nothing extra for anyone older.
As has been said, with incapacity benefit, the adult dependant will have to be over 60, or looking after children, whereas age is irrelevant with invalidity benefit. Claimants will also receive less money. One can claim invalidity benefit for five years after retirement, but that is not the case with incapacity benefit, which is available until retirement age only. Invalidity benefit is not taxable, whereas incapacity benefit is. The list goes on and on and the changes are totally unfair.
If the Minister taxes incapacity benefit, will he introduce a proper benefit or allowance for those with special needs? The Disablement Income Group estimates that it will cost £87 a week for special needs and I hope that he will take that into consideration.
The Minister estimated that 50 per cent, of claimants might have to be reassessed. The Government said that it was likely to be 85 per cent. He also said that it was thought that about 220,000 would be deemed fit for work after the tests, which I find extraordinary. The Department of Social Security has initiated some sort of test and says that one in four of those on invalidity benefit will be deemed fit for work.
The new test will be the same as the current test for the first 28 weeks, whether it is for sickness benefit or new incapacity benefit. But after that, claimants must complete an unwieldy questionnaire of some 72 pages. They will need a considerable amount of help to fill it in and citizens advice bureaux are already receiving many inquiries about problems with it. Their case load will increase dramatically. Members of Parliament, too, will be inundated with people coming to see them about their problems, just as we did with disability benefit and child support. In six months or a year's time, the Minister will have to come back to the House to announce changes in the Act, just as happened with the Child Support Act

1991. I hope that the problem does not go that far, but I fear that it will. Conservative Back Benchers will complain to the Minister, just as we are complaining now.
The tests are also unfair. For example, a person who can carry a 5 lb bag of potatoes is awarded eight points; and a person who can turn on a tap with one hand is awarded 6 points. But many disabled people overestimate what they can do and do not want to admit that they cannot do certain tasks. So those filling in the questionnaire may say that they can do something whereas they cannot.
I welcome the fact that the Minister said that people with severe mental illness will be excluded. But the section on "mental disabilities", as the Government call them, is still woefully inadequate.
The section on the partially sighted is also woefully inadequate. Will the Minister reassure me—I know that he has had representations about this in addition to the incapacity benefit and medical test—that the wording of the test will be changed so that it says that partially sighted people should be able to read on a sustained basis, rather than just be able to read words? He may have reached some agreement on that, but will he say something about it when he sums up tonight? The medical test should also include the ability to scan and focus areas of text and the words
functionally useful field of vision".
If claimants manage to fill in those forms, many of them will be seen by doctors from the Benefits Agency medical service, but those doctors will not know the patients. The Government may say that that is a good thing as it will ensure that the system it not open to abuse, but if doctors do not know the patients they will not know the patients' real history or the problems that they have experienced. Furthermore, will doctors who must review cases be trained in the relevant specialities, for instance, in mental health? Under the industrial injuries compensation review, many doctors are brought in from specialist fields. I know that that would be expensive and I doubt whether the Government will take the suggestion on board, but they should be aware of the various specialities. A doctor should not simply be asked to say whether someone with mental illness or a disability is unfit for work. They must have been trained in a particular speciality.
Filling in the questionnaire will present great problems for the mentally ill, many of whom will not bother to fill it in and claim benefit. Some of them are unable to concentrate or have given up their jobs because of panic attacks. Imagine a mentally ill person presented with all those questions. They will make him or her panic even more.
Some people will fall through the net between the incapacity and jobseekers benefits. In a written answer, the Minister of State, Department of Employment said that the problem will not have a great effect and will be taken into account under the new jobseeker's allowance in a similar way to unemployment benefit. But citizens advice bureaux already say that people are falling through the net as a result of the new medical test on invalidity benefit. They try to get unemployment benefit but end up getting no benefit whatever. I can imagine the arguments at the Benefits Agency about what should be excluded from the "area of work", because that point is being argued already. I hope that the Government will think again about the medical test. They seem to be simply clawing back money for the Treasury.
Another key point is that many people will seek advice. If the Government think that people can rely on citizens advice bureaux, they must ensure that the CAB are given the funds and wherewithal to deal with all the cases that are brought to them, or the Government will have to provide an alternative.
I wish that the Government had decided to simplify the invalidity benefit rather than complicate it and introduce a benefit that would advantage disabled people. The incapacity benefit simply penalises disabled people. Disabled people's organisations throughout the country and hon. Members on both sides of the House want the Minister, even at this late stage, to change his mind and review the medical test and, if possible, the incapacity benefit.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me once again. I have sat across the Floor from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in many social security debates and was, unusually, gearing up to pay him a compliment. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place to witness it. The manner in which he has approached this matter has been fair-minded. He is always a master of detail and I always learn something when he speaks. He makes broad and encouraging comments in addressing the overall problem of social security and an ever-rising budget. He said in 1992:
The Labour Party recognises the inadequacies of the present system … any government is entitled to review policy and spending patterns".
So they are. He also said on the television series "On the Record":
I certainly don't take the view that the answer to the problems of the Social Security Department is just spending more money within the framework of the present system".
Indeed, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for both those observations.
Our problem, however, is in moving from those generalities to specifics and I regret that, even before we had a chance to study the details of the Bill, he dismissed it simply as a conspiracy to undermine the welfare state. It is not a conspiracy to do so. Rather, the reforms before us tonight, and the specific matters in the statutory instruments that we are debating, address and fit well within the context of the long-term problems of social security with which Governments must wrestle.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
The Bill has three objectives: first, to ensure that the huge and rising sums devoted to sickness benefits are properly focused on those who are genuinely too unwell to work; secondly, to ensure that the cost is affordable; and thirdly, to provide a more rational structure of benefits."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 35.]
That is a good rule of thumb for almost any reform to the social security system and is in tune with the issues with which the Select Committee on Social Security has dealt.
The current structure, which has been changed by the regulations, is inadequate. It is complicated and running out of control. There are currently two main benefits for people who are away from work for short periods because of sickness—statutory sick pay and sickness benefit.
When we consider long-term incapacity we find that most people who have been entitled to either statutory sick pay or sickness benefit become entitled to the

contributory invalidity benefit after 28 weeks of incapacity until they claim state retirement pension or are able to work again. They have to provide evidence of incapacity—normally to their own doctor. The invalidity benefit currently consists of an invalidity pension paid at the same rate as retirement pension, an invalidity allowance—an age-related addition that is paid to people qualifying for invalidity pension who become incapable of work more than five years before pensionable age— and an additional pension that is based on people's earnings between 1978–79 and 1990–91. The Government have already reformed the additional pension so that no further entitlement arises on earnings beyond April 1991. That measure was part of the package introduced from 1991 to improve the balance of incapacity benefits.
The existing severe disablement allowance is non-contributory and goes to those people who are incapable of work for more than 28 weeks. But the flaws of the existing structure became completely overwhelming and there was increasing and widespread concern that benefits for those incapable of work have been going to people for whom they were never intended. There has been a rapid growth in invalidity benefit at a time when the nation's health has been recorded as improving. The number of people in receipt of invalidity benefit has almost trebled over the past 15 years—from 550,000 to about 1.8 million.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend alluded to what he described as increasing concern that invalidity benefit was going to people to whom it should not. What evidence has he of that concern? What evidence has he that the concern may be justified?

Mr. Duncan: It is self-evident that, if the health of the nation is improving while, at the same time, the number of people deemed to be disabled and in receipt of benefit is increasing dramatically, there is something inconsistent in the way that disability benefit is delivered. I shall tell my hon. Friend the figures with which one has to wrestle.
Expenditure on benefit has more than doubled over the past 10 years, even after allowing for inflation. It more than trebled in cash terms—from £1.6 billion in the financial year 1982–83 to £7 billion in 1993–94. If the system remained unreformed, the estimate is that spending could rise to £10 billion by the end of the century. It has become the largest contributory benefit after the state pension and one of the fastest-growing areas of expenditure in the system. I commend the Government for addressing the problems of a set of circumstances with which it is increasingly impossible to live.
Those who are capable of work, but unemployed, should not be in receipt of incapacity benefit. Instead, they should receive benefits designed for those who are unemployed and, in particular, they should be designed to help such people back to work. Long-term dependence on incapacity benefit reduces motivation, causes skills to deteriorate and makes it harder for the recipient to take employment when work becomes available. It entrenches a distortion in the labour market which is severely detrimental to the long-term welfare and prosperity, not just of the country, but of the individuals involved.
Another problem with the system was that general practitioners were experiencing severe difficulty fulfilling their role as the gatekeeper to invalidity benefit. The current system has placed them in an unfair position—a nasty and invidious position—in relation to their patients.
It is almost impossible for a GP to maintain a cordial relationship with a patient for whom he has care and a duty of care when he is also asked to be the effective vetter of the patient's right to a state-provided benefit. It is as well that the GP's role has been significantly reduced to a more administrative one.
The new system to be introduced in April amalgamates the myriad benefits into a single new benefit. It will be contributory and paid as of right, irrespective of means, to everyone who satisfies the necessary conditions. I think that the eligibility conditions have been fairly drawn. For the first 28 weeks of incapacity, people will be able to receive incapacity benefit if they are incapable of working in their own occupation. After 28 weeks, a new medical test of incapacity for all work will apply. It will apply in respect of both incapacity benefit and other benefits paid on the basis of long-term incapacity.
There will be three rates of payment. The lowest will be payable for the first 28 weeks of sickness, when many people have occupational sick pay and other resources to call on, and will be paid at a rate equivalent to existing sickness benefit. After 28 weeks, an intermediate tier will be payable, set at the current higher rate of statutory sick pay. It will ensure that the benefit level is maintained for those who have been receiving statutory sick pay. The highest rate of incapacity benefit will be payable after 52 weeks of incapacity and will be set at the current basic rate of invalidity benefit.
Existing claimants will continue to receive the rate of benefit in payment at the time of the change. In recognition of the overlap that now exists between state and private provision, the earnings-related additional pension on invalidity benefit will be abolished for new claimants and frozen for existing claimants. The Government have also undertaken to continue to uprate the remainder of the benefit. Many people undertake voluntary and therapeutic work, and certain changes contained in the measure will assist them. From April, all recipients of incapacity benefit will be able to undertake voluntary work for up to 16 hours a week while receiving benefit.
Under the existing system, many factors are considered when taking decisions on incapacity. Such factors include age, skills, education, experience and something dubbed "other social factors". But the trouble is that the list precludes a tight definition of incapacity and makes it difficult to determine precisely whether someone is eligible to receive the benefit.
The new system has considerable advantages and, under it, for the first 28 weeks of incapacity, people will be able to receive the lower rate of incapacity benefit if they are incapable of working in their own occupation. After 28 weeks, a new medical test of incapacity will apply. That medical test will involve the claimant, the claimant's GP and the departmental doctor. In an assessment of the claimant's ability to carry out a range of work-related activities, certain tests will apply. A significant advantage over the former system is that the GP will be involved only in a limited role and in supplying purely medical information.
The regulations that we are considering are detailed and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) has quibbled with some of the tests included in the questionnaire—I can see why in many respects. The own occupation test

and the all work test which are defined in the instruments have been researched extensively. In seeking to define them, the Government have received more than 350 responses since the publication of their consultation document on 1 December 1993. The Government have evaluated all the information and they have come up with detailed, clear and undeniably workable guidelines.
The methods of dealing with those who suffer from mental health problems—with which the hon. Member for Rochdale is intensely concerned; indeed, she raised the matter during the proceedings of the Disability Discrimination Bill this morning—have been addressed and the provisions have been designed properly. I have read them in considerable detail and assessed how they will replace the existing system and I commend them to the House.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is concerned, quite correctly, about avoiding the ghettoisation of the unemployed and the handicapped. He has advanced proposals in support of a scheme which at least makes a return to employment possible; that is a laudable objective. However, I wonder whether he is being entirely realistic.
I shall deal first the plight of those who suffer from mental illness—in either severe or moderate forms— which is not exempt from the test. People generally refuse to acknowledge their illness and they take violent exception to the suggestion that they may, in any way, be mentally ill. Therefore, those who suffer mental illness often make a very traumatic entry into the health service. The argument about whether people are mildly or severely mentally ill is totally irrelevant.
If such people lose their jobs and are then forced to deal with the most difficult aspects of social security provision, a temporary breakdown could easily become a permanent disability. When we identify the support mechanisms available to the mentally ill, it is obvious that the overwhelming burden of responsibility falls on community care and the health service. However, I do not think that the social security system can wash its hands entirely of its responsibilities.
I welcome the exemption of the severely mentally ill from the work test, but the fact that the mildly mentally ill will be subject to the test poses all sorts of problems. Regulation 18(l)(b) states:
where a person x2026; fails without good cause to attend for or submit himself to medical or other treatment … he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit".
That provision may overlap with the Government's proposals in the legislation dealing with the supervised discharge of the mentally ill and with community care arrangements. Have the Government thought about how regulation 18 will operate when community care arrangements vary hugely from one health authority to another and when the attitudes and the understanding of social security staff vary a great deal from one office to another? There is a standard system, but practical interpretation of it varies widely. I do not think that Motherwell is in the worst position in that regard, but I do not think that we fare particularly well either.
In building up the community care provision, it is essential that the Departments of Employment, of Health and of Social Security work together very closely. The Department of Employment supports many admirable access-to-work schemes for the mentally ill which are run by people who have been mentally ill themselves. Mentally-ill people receive a sympathetic hearing from departmental staff and they are encouraged to take on more and more work. However, there is a danger that they will take on too much work, which may have disastrous consequences. It could prove beneficial to link the access-to-work schemes more closely with the health service—in terms both of national policy and of the local delivery of that policy.
It is in the softer aspects of the organisation and provision of opportunities to return to work, rather than the hard, practical rules which are considered by the House, that the greatest progress will be made. Returning people to work successfully requires constructive and sensitive organisation and the regulations should be drafted in such a way as to achieve some flexibility. I do not think that that flexibility is achieved in the regulations as they stand at present and they overlap with legislation which is yet to come before the House. I trust that the Minister and his departmental colleagues will continue to give careful attention to those matters.

Mr. Keith Bradley: We have had a thoughtful debate, and I commend the effective contributions from both sides of the House, which will form a major part of the on-going debate on the regulations. They will continue to come before the House for a number of years and we shall be able to monitor their effects.
However, I must immediately take issue with the contribution of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). He said it was self-evident that, because the health of the nation is improving, the number of people on invalidity benefit should be falling. If he looks carefully at the research undertaken by the Department of Social Security—

Mr. Duncan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not say that. I said that if the health of the nation is improving, it is curious that the number of disabled people appears to be increasing as fast as it is.

Mr. Bradley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's rewording of what I thought he said. Even so, I should be grateful if he would read the research from the Department of Social Security before making such assumptions. DSS statistics and independent research show clearly that the growth in the number of claims is more to do with people spending longer periods on benefit than with an increase in the number of people making claims.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to research conducted by the Policy Studies Institute which shows that demographic trends account for much of that increase. The trends include: an increase in the number of women paying national insurance contributions; an increase in the number of people above pension age; and a gradual increase in the number of people with disabilities, with a significant rise over the period of the increase. In future,

I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will look at the statistics more carefully before making rather broad-brush assumptions about why the number of claims for benefit has increased.
The regulations give us the opportunity to debate for the first time the new test of incapacity for work and the transitional arrangements. They are crucially important for thousands of people who are disabled and chronically sick and for those who will be so affected after April this year. The provisions are wide-ranging as they apply not only to incapacity benefit, which replaces sickness benefit and invalidity benefit, but to the assessment of incapacity for severe disablement allowance, income support and credit only cases. They range further than merely the assessment for incapacity benefit.
The reasoning behind the new test—to cut the increasing number of claims—has been perceived as a problem only in the case of invalidity benefit and not for the severe disablement allowance and for income support.
This is the first and last time that the House will have the opportunity to debate the details of the new incapacity test before it is implemented. We complained during the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 that no definition of the medical test appeared in the Bill, so we could not debate it. Considerable concern was expressed in both Houses about the nature of the test. No details of the new definition were available because consultation and development were being undertaken simultaneously. We did not have the benefit of understanding that process while considering the Bill to implement the test.
It eventually became clear that the test would deal only with functional ability and would not be more wide-ranging. A person's incapacity is reduced to a set of formulas that omits other factors relevant to incapacity, which are used in the formulas for invalidity benefit— age, education, work experience and skills.
The October 1994 consultation document confirmed that the exclusion of relevant factors was a particular concern of many respondents to the February 1994 consultation. Even some members of the expert panel established to advise on development of the test expressed their concern. The test did not enjoy a consensus among all panel members but was the subject of considerable disagreement. That has not been properly explained in the House or elsewhere.
Professors of rehabilitation, for example, were not asked to participate as members of the panel, but expressed their considerable concern about the development of the test. They wrote to The Times on 12 April 1994 to express their grave doubts about the way that the matter was handled.
It is nothing short of cruel that people found to be capable of work on functional grounds should be expected to find employment when there is no work for them to do. Regulation 27 acknowledges exceptional circumstances in which someone could fail the functional test but nevertheless be deemed as incapable of work, and is to be welcomed. However, the October consultation document suggested that the provision was made because the evaluation studies revealed that, in some cases,
the functional assessment was not appropriate".
If Benefits Agency medical service doctors found during clinical examination cases that could not be assessed on functional criteria alone, that must cast doubt


on the validity of the test. Despite the BAMS reservations, the Government decided to go ahead with a clearly one-dimensional, functional test. One questions whether the principal rationale is to save money rather than to ensure accurate, proper and wide-ranging assessment of a person's incapacity.
Part III of the regulations, and particularly regulation 24, defines the all-work test as meaning an individual's inability to score a set number of points in the scale of descriptors in the schedule. Unlike the provisions for early assessment of incapacity for a person's own occupation in chapter I, which is applicable for the first 28 weeks, or for exempt work under regulation 17, part III contains no definition of "work" for the all-work test. That reduces someone's capacity to undertake all work to a crude assessment based on the performance of such functions as picking up a 2.5 kg bag of potatoes.
Incidentally, one change might be dubbed the metric meanness test. During consultation, the proposal to assess a person's ability to walk was based on yards, but that was changed to a metric measure, which will make it more difficult for the individual to score points.
Except for the estimated 15 per cent, of claimants who will be treated as incapable of work under regulation 10, most claimants will have to score at least 15 points in a test of physical or mental functions, or at least 10 in a test of mental ability alone. Many organisations throughout the country have expressed great concern about the score targets. We pay tribute to organisations such as the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, the citizens advice bureaux, MIND, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Child Poverty Action Group and many others, which provided a wealth of information that made our debates more effective. They clearly explained the problems that they envisage our constituents will present at our surgeries in future. We welcome the contributions of those organisations.
The arbitrary nature of the 15-point cut-off, with no other factors to be taken into account, means that a score of 13 or 14, while confirming substantial disability, would disqualify a person from incapacity benefit. The closeness of reaching the threshold will not be taken into account. That means that anyone who cannot
stand for more than 30 minutes before needing to sit down
and merits a score of seven, and cannot
raise one arm to his head to put on a hat
and merits a score of six, and so achieves a total score of 13, will be two points short of being eligible for the benefit.
Crucially, on the mental disability scale there could be people suffering from depression, anxiety or panic attacks who will also fail the test, but who would be unable to sustain the routine of work or travel to work. An individual with a mild or moderate mental health problem must score at least 10 points to qualify for benefit. Someone who frequently
feels scared or panicky for no obvious reason
and scores two, is
scared or anxious that work would bring back or worsen his illness
and
too frightened to go out alone

would score one point on each count, to achieve a total of only four, and not be entitled to incapacity benefit. I urge the Minister to reconsider wider matters.
Mention was made of problems associated with the interface between incapacity benefit and the jobseeker's allowance. We will monitor that carefully when the Bill introducing that allowance is enacted and its implications are clearer. Members on both sides of the House urged the Minister to reconsider the age factor. The passporting of people aged over 58 in the transitional regulations is recognition that age has an impact on a person's ability to undertake work. Age banding or some other mechanism should be used, rather than an arbitrary cut-off age of 58.
The regulations are before the House again because of the original failure to include severe mental illness. Can the Minister give an assurance that the amended regulations are not faulty? I shall give one example. I am sure that the Minister will be able to allay my fears, but on page 7 of the regulations, under the heading 'Treating as Capable, Disqualification" it sets out where a person should be treated in that respect as being
under regulations 10 to 15 or 26".
That is someone who is treated as capable for work. However, section 27 deals with the person's capability for work. I just want to ensure that that is my misreading of the regulations rather than an error.
I would like further assurance from the Minister that he will comply with the comments made by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), who said:
Regulations will, however, be made before the full commencement of the Act."—[Official Report, 21 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 148.]
As the Minister has agreed that there will have to be amendments to the regulations, and that those amendments will have to be affirmative regulations, will he assure us that they will be brought before the House before the Act is implemented, because flowing on from that is the guidance that the Benefits Agency staff and many other advisers throughout the country will require to ensure that the regulations and the benefit are properly administered? We do not want a repeat of the chaos that ensued following the introduction of the Child Support Agency. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the regulations and the guidance to ensure that the training and all the possible eventualities following the introduction of the benefit are properly addressed before the Act is implemented.
The points of concern over the regulations have already been identified. We are concerned that they contain a significant omission—that is, they do not take into account the effects of pain, stiffness, fatigue and the variability of functional limitations in fluctuating, relapsing or variable conditions. We heard examples of that from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like assurances that those factors will be properly considered by the Benefits Agency medical services when assessment is undertaken.
We want further assurances about exactly who will be included in the exempt group under regulation 10. A number of chronic conditions listed are described as "severe", but what precisely is severe? For example, what is
a severe and progress neurological and muscle wasting disease"?


At what point does a person's condition become severe? Will there be provision for people to move from not severe into the severe category? How will that be assessed? What certificates will be required to ensure that that transfer is included?
We would like assurances on the interaction between exempt groups and functional scoring. The dividing line between the two could be quite crucial. If someone falls outside the exempt group, he or she will have to go through the functional scoring test—for example, people with learning disabilities falling outside the "severe" category. The mental disability scale is totally inappropriate, as it involves descriptors, which are compared with someone's mental state at the time when the claim was made, rather than as the condition developed. That does not address the needs of people with learning disabilities who have not acquired a mental health problem. There are other examples of where the change in the circumstances and the functional scoring at the point of the claim is inappropriate, because the condition could have been with that person since birth.
It is important that all Conservative Members are quite clear about what they are voting on and of the effects that it may have on their constituents who eventually come to see them about the legislation. Let me give a concrete example of what effect the legislation will have in practice. It is of a person aged 55 and who been on invalidity benefit for five years. He has chronic emphysema and chronic bronchitis. He has worked as a miner for 30 years and has limited learning and writing skills. His children have grown up and left home, but he continues to live with his wife, who is not in work. Under invalidity benefit today, he would be entitled, with each of the elements, to £109.30 a week. After the uprating in April 1995—to be fair to the Minister—he will receive £111.45.
Let us look at a neighbour who has been through the same experience at work and has had to leave work, perhaps with the same chronic ailments, but has not yet claimed, so will be a new recipient of incapacity benefit. In the first six months, he will receive £52.50 in statutory sick pay. At 28 weeks, if he falls within the exempt group, he will be treated as incapable of work and therefore be entitled to benefit, but at the 28-week stage, his benefit remains at £52.50. Only when he has been incapable of work for a year does his benefit go up, this time to £58.85. He receives no age allowance, as he has become incapable of work after the age of 45. While his neighbour will be getting £111.45, he will get £58.85—a difference of £52.60 per week. Because of the delay in receiving the full rate of benefit, there will be a further loss of £152.40 in the waiting time of 24 weeks.
I want Conservative Members to be absolutely clear that tonight they are voting for a potential difference between the current invalidity benefit of £111.45 and the new rate. Someone who is in exactly the same position, has passed the medical test and so is a "genuine"—to use the term of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton— claimant and recipient of incapacity benefit will receive £52.60 less per week. Conservative Members should not say that we have not told them. We have told them at

every stage of the Bill—on Second Reading, Committee, Third Reading, and now on the regulations. That is the sort of case that Conservative Members will see coming through the doors of their advice bureaux. They should not come back to the House and say that we did not tell them.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): We have had an interesting and varied debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me to respond to a number of questions. I will attempt to do that in the time available.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked me specifically about amendments to the regulations in future. Both he and I have had a number of discussions about that in recent times. I can tell him, as indeed he is already aware, that a number of amendments, which, I think, we would all want to make, have been identified since the regulations in their first draft were laid at the end of November. He is an extremely perceptive reader of the regulations in that he has spotted one of them—a 26 needs converting to a 27. There are others— very soon, he may be recruited as a civil servant to the Department of Social Security—such as the therapeutic earnings limit needing to be updated from £43 to £44, and so on. There are discussions with the Terrence Higgins Trust about the definition of immune deficiency. We want to ensure that we get these things right. Any such amendments will be laid in good time before the test comes into operation. They will be affirmative and none of them involves any policy change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) gave a good summary of the case for reform of the current arrangements. He particularly referred to the position of GPs who, of course, for some time have been acting as policemen for the social security system. That can, as he said, undermine the doctor-patient relationship. The future restriction of GP involvement mainly to short-term claims will significantly reduce the burden upon them because they will need to complete many fewer statements of incapacity and the Department will be writing to them for further reports far less often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) particularly asked whether the questionnaire seeks advice on variable conditions. It contains space for claimants to give information on all the effects of their condition, including pain, stress, fatigue and variability. There is a question in each functional area and at the end it asks claimants whether there is anything that they want to say about pain or stress.
When the Benefits Agency medical services doctor assesses someone for the all-work test, he will take full account of the history and evolution of the medical condition, the effect that it has on daily life and normal tasks over a period of time and the limitations that are imposed by it. The doctor must also justify his choice of descriptors in terms of any variability or fluctuation of those effects and also the effects of pain and fatigue. I can assure my hon. Friend that that point is being emphasised


in the training given to doctors. The test will not be a snapshot at a point in time but an assessment of variable conditions over a period.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hague: I shall give way once, but I have many questions to answer, including some from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Reverting to the role of general practitioners, will my hon. Friend confirm that it is unacceptable to the Government that GPs should charge claimants fees for their part in the process, that that really is outrageous where it occurs and that the Government regard it as completely inconsistent with the principles of the NHS?

Mr. Hague: General practitioners have to provide such a report free of charge and they have to respond to inquiries from the Department. If additional information is required, it is up to general practitioners whether they wish to impose a charge, but many would not wish to do so. They have to provide the basic information to their patients and to the Department free of charge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight was particularly concerned about multiple sclerosis. The Benefits Agency medical services doctor will advise adjudication officers on the basis of the report from the patient's doctor. The severity of symptoms and the care and treatment requirements of the person will all be carefully considered by a fully trained doctor who will be considering all the factors that I have described.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) asked about the medical conditions that will confer entitlement. The new all-work test assesses the limiting effect of medical conditions. It does not depend on diagnosis. Some conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, are so severe that it is likely that a sufferer would be exempt from the test.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed to research about the reasons for the growth in the invalidity budget and it was accepted that those reasons are complex. They must concede that, even in the PSI documents quoted, nearly half of the growth could not be accounted for by demographic factors, even taking a loose definition of demographic. Research in the Department and independent research shows that GPs are issuing medical certificates to people who are not sick, or who are at least not too sick to work. It is important that we deal with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about the savings and referred to a written parliamentary answer that I gave him a few days ago about the change in expenditure that would result from extending the exemption from the test to existing claimants aged 55 and over or aged 50 and over. He quoted my reply accurately when he said that the amount involved would be £15 million if people aged 55 and over were exempted and £45 million in the coming year if people aged 50 and over were exempted. However, as I pointed out at the end of that written answer, the figure would be much higher for subsequent years. By the third year, the figures involved would be £105 million if all those aged 55 and over were exempted, or £210 million if all those aged 50 or over were exempted.
Those are huge sums of money, besides which it would scarcely be fair to new claimants of the benefit to exempt existing claimants on that scale, given the research that I have just quoted that seems to suggest that there are people receiving invalidity benefit who are capable of work.
I ask my hon. Friend to think about the pressures that are imposed on the rest of the social security budget if those sums of money are spent without confidence that they are focused on the people for whom they are intended. I ask him to think about where else we could make reductions of the scale that we are talking about here and that he advocated spending.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the percentage of existing claimants exempt from the test. He referred a number of times to a figure of one quarter. The figure that I have given of 220,000 people among existing claimants being found incapable of work is nearer to one eighth of the total number who are currently receiving the benefit. About one half are exempt from the new medical test because of the combination, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of those who are 58 and over and those who fit the other criteria set out in the regulations. It is not possible to come up with local figures from the national figures, but I have published the national figures in the past and can do so again. However, I do not have figures for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Members for Garscadden and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney expressed concern about people being worried and citizens advice bureaux being inundated with inquiries. We have developed a strategy for advising existing claimants, advisers and the medical profession about the changes. Leaflets have been published and order books include relevant messages. Further steps will also be taken.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) made an important point about the ability for sustained reading. When a Benefits Agency doctor considers vision, he will also take into account the ability to read text on a sustained basis, rather than the ability to read individual letters or words; the ability to scan and focus on areas of text quickly and reliably. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady also asked about the questionnaire, which I think she said would run into 72 pages. That might scare people, but it is actually 20 pages long. It is clear and easy to complete. It has been put through market research with existing claimants and their comments particularly stress that it was easy to complete. The comments were most positive. Help will be available from specially trained staff for those who need assistance with the questionnaire.
One of the most frightening things about all our debates on these matters is that the Opposition, fully aware that an unreformed invalidity benefit budget would head to about £10,000 million by the end of the century, and knowing that the benefit is not as focused as it should be, still have no alternative policy for dealing with the problem. The House and the nation are left not knowing how the Labour party would respond to that after all the debates that there have been in Committee and on the Floor of the House. After tonight's debate we are none the wiser. The Opposition know the pressure on other social


security programmes if we do not focus on those who need these benefits most. They know the difficulties created for other sectors of Government spending.
In the past few weeks, the Opposition have come to the House several times to vote against raising revenue; last night they came to the House to vote in a way that implied the spending of a great deal more money. They are going to do that again tonight. They oppose what we are suggesting—sensible and timely reforms—without having an alternative to put in the place of those reforms. We would receive more positive proposals, and more of an impression of awareness of the need to act, from the average ostrich than we receive from Opposition Front Benchers. Few things could better illustrate the Labour party's fiscal irresponsibility.
This is a necessary and timely reform. It focuses on the people who need benefit most—

It being Seven o 'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [27 January]
The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 232.

Division No. 62]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ancram, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Delvin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dicks, Terry


Bates, Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, lain


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright Sir Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fabricant, Michael


Browing, Mrs. Angela
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Fishbum, Dudley


Bums, Simon
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gallie, Phil


Churchill, Mr
Gardiner, Sir George


Clappison, James
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gamier, Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gill, Christopher


Coe, Sebastian
Gillan, Cheryl





Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, Sir John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir A(SW Cambs)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hangreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, lain


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stem, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)






Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Waterson, Nigel


Thurnham, Peter
Watts, John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wells, Bowen


Tracey, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trend, Michael
Whittingdale,John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfeld)


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ward, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Enright, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, Andrew F
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Boyes, Roland
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gerrard, Neil


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Caborn, Richard
Golding,MrsLlin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hall, Mike


Chidgey, David
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Church, Judith
Harvey, Nick


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monldands W)
Hodge, Margaret


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Coffey, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Darling, Alistair
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Denham, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)





Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Janner, Greville
Pope, Greg


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jowell, Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Randall, Stuart


Khabra, Piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rooker.Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Eddie
Ruddock, Joan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & amp;F'sbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Speller, John


Mahon, Alice
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mandelson, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Straw, Jack


Martlew, Eric
Suteliffe, Gerry


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meale, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wise, Audrey


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, Bill
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Pearson, Ian
Mr. Joe Benton and


Pickthall, Colin
Mrs. Barbara Roche.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity Benefit)(Transitional) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]

Science Budget

[Relevant documents: The Second Report of Session 1993-94 from the Science and Technology Committee on the Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994 (HC 422), the First Report of Session 1994-95 on the Efficiency Unit Scrutiny of Public Sector Research Establishments (HC 19) and European Community Document No. 10564/94, relating to co-ordination of research and development]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): The date 2 February is fast becoming an important day in the science calendar. On this day last year, we debated the orders creating the new research councils. This year, again, we have a welcome opportunity to focus on the Government's science policy. Today we announce a science budget that is a blueprint for the future—£1.3 billion, which will keep Britain in the premier league for research and ensure that British scientists and engineers remain some of the best in the world.
Today also gives me the chance to pay tribute to the work of the Science and Technology Select Committee, under the admirable chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). The Committee has made a prominent contribution to debate on science policy, not least through its report on "First Forward Look", to which the Government responded earlier this week.
Last November, the Government demonstrated yet again that science and engineering were among our highest priorities when we were able to maintain the science budget at its current record level, despite the pressures on public spending. In allocating that budget now, I plan to build on the principles of the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential".
When I became Cabinet Minister with responsibility for science, I said that I wanted to build on the work of my predecessor, who performed such an outstanding job in putting science and engineering at the top of the United Kingdom political agenda. In doing that, we must ensure that we sustain the excellence of our science base, that our intellectual resources are harnessed to improving the country's economic performance and quality of life and that we promote partnership between the science base, industry and Government.
We must also retain our strong commitment to curiosity-driven research. We do not want university departments to become short-term problem-solvers for industry. The science base must concentrate on its proper role, which is the training of highly skilled men and women and research at the frontiers of knowledge, but those frontiers are expanding and we cannot possibly cover everything. We need to focus our efforts on the areas that we judge most likely to bear fruit. That is what the UK's first technology foresight programme is all about. It has provided a unique opportunity for Government, industry and the science base to pool their best people and to ensure that we pull together. Overall, some 10,000 people have had the opportunity to take part.

The outcomes of the programme will be published this spring. I believe that they will set a challenging agenda for the future.
We also need to work across national boundaries. We cannot maintain high standards by working in isolation. We are committed to effective international co-operation in appropriate areas. That is why we have worked so hard to ensure that the individual programme lines within the fourth European framework programme reflect British priorities. That is why we worked so hard in negotiations on the large hadron collider at CERN to secure British involvement in the world's leading particle physics experiment and a budgetary framework that reflects our commitment to efficiency and value for money.

Sir Giles Shaw: On the point about funding for the LHC, has any progress has been made on shared funding between other European states to enable that project to proceed correctly?

Mr. Hunt: Thanks to the tremendous efforts of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, we were—at last—able to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations with an effective stand for a much more cost-effective regime, which will save considerable sums of money for the United Kingdom over the next 15 years. It will also mean that there is much more effective participation in an exciting programme that is affordable and can give good value for money.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has saved a considerable amount of money. Is that a saving to the Government or will it be redistributed within the science budget?

Mr. Hunt: It is a saving to the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. Our subscription to CERN is paid through that research council, as is our subscription to the science programme of the European Space Agency. I cannot predict what will happen in future public expenditure rounds, but it is a substantive saving of £5 million a year for 15 years. That will very much strengthen our ability to focus on the right priorities. I cannot predict what the exact global figure will be, but some guideline figures were announced last November. The project will release additional funds in the PPARC budget.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little more on what he means by effective participation in the European science scene?

Mr. Hunt: Probably the most effective result of the negotiations is that we know that the project will be completed and will happen. I was delighted with the agreement that was reached. As a result, the UK and other member states will benefit from an overall reduction of some 1 billion Swiss francs in the cost of the project over its lifetime from 1998 to 2008. That is worth some £70 million to UK science.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has not the considerable delay in reaching agreement on the funding of the CERN project possibly damaged the prospect of involvement from other international concerns in Japan and the United States of America?

Mr. Hunt: I do not think so, although I understand why the hon. Lady puts that point. We have now achieved


a much stronger project. It was essential to establish a realistic, fair and sustainable financial and planning framework for the project. Let us not forget that we are talking about a total cost of £1.5 billion. With costs at that level, it would have been irresponsible of the Government to give approval to the LHC without that necessary framework. CERN, like all other institutions that are competing for the limited resources that are available to science, must demonstrate that it is providing the best value for money. To be assured that the LHC would be completed within the resources that are likely to be available, tight cost control was essential.
I expect that the anticipated additional contributions from non-member states will enable the LHC project to be accelerated. The current timetable, however, would still enable world-leading science to be carried out from the year 2004. In many ways, we now have a much stronger project as a result of all that has happened. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology led a trade delegation to CERN and a great deal of progress has been made, especially for British interests, now that the budget has been agreed.

Mr. John Denham: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of international collaboration, does he agree that the position does not seem quite as rosy for working scientists? I refer, for example, to the integral project led by the astronomy department at Southampton university. Over three or four years of close technical assessment, that project has been developed in collaboration with other countries, and the European Space Agency has agreed that it is a priority project; yet PPARC has been unable to guarantee the funds to enable that international collaboration to continue. Despite the Minister's words, from the working scientists' point of view, it seems that a major opportunity for Britain to contribute to an important international science project may be lost. I fear that the problem faces scientists working in other sectors as well.

Mr. Hunt: We have moved from CERN to the ESA, but we are dealing with subscriptions and with the ability to fund those subscriptions. I shall make an announcement in a moment on making that possible. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I know that he is in correspondence with my parliamentary secretary about it. The Government have found the resources to fund a real terms increase in science spending in this financial year, and to maintain it in the next, but budgetary constraints require difficult decisions to be taken all the time on funding priorities.
We already devote considerable resources to astronomy. The astronomy community has no less duty to demonstrate that it is securing best value for money than any other community. Real opportunities exist to make the necessary savings in the ESA, which would improve the balance between domestic and subscription spend. There is every encouragement to ensure that we achieve the best value for money in all these programmes.

Mr. Denham: Is the Minister saying that, if savings in ESA subscriptions can be achieved, money would be recycled back into the programme to enable projects such as the integral project in Southampton to continue?

Mr. Hunt: It is for PPARC to decide how best to deploy the resources available to it. If it decides not to fund UK participation in such an integral project, it will be because it believes that other research opportunities offer better scientific value for money.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will continue its strongest support for the space agency, which is such an important ingredient in ensuring that British space policy is focused, and that a proper balance exists between science and other commercial programmes that are run in the space community?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whose responsibility this is, has heard what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that the agency will work with all the others involved to ensure that we maintain a viable programme. I expect PPARC, in association with the British National Space Centre, to make strenuous efforts to obtain the best possible efficiency savings from the ESA's science budget.
We have demonstrated already that PPARC has benefited to a substantial degree from the excellent deal struck with CERN on the LHC, which will result in those financial savings. It is possible, therefore, to reduce mandatory subscriptions to the ESA by as much as £10 million a year. That gives opportunities to achieve spend at the right level. We must achieve the right balance between the domestic and the subscription spend.

Mr. John Battle: So that I am absolutely clear on this issue, will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the Government will top slice international subscriptions from PPARC's budget so that the whole cost does not fall on PPARC, half of whose budget has been taken up with paying those subscriptions? If that happens, will any benefits gained be distributed across the whole sector or will they go back to PPARC?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important new point. As I have already explained, our subscription to CERN is paid through PPARC. Taken together with our subscription to the science programme of the European Space Agency, those subscriptions cost some £100 million a year, but they are determined in foreign currency. Modest changes in exchange rates and in the relative economic performance of organisations' member states can have a significant effect on the sterling cost. Of course, the Government's tremendous success in putting Britain on top of the premier league for growth in Europe also has an impact. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate one of the consequences of the Government's successful economic policy, but difficulties exist for PPARC.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, in announcing the allocation of the science budgets, we have agreed with the chief executives of all the research councils that, where such fluctuations occur, the cost will be taken as a first charge on the scientific budget. In 1995, the cost is estimated at around £8 million, but that will


not fall solely on PPARC. Because of the agreement reached right across research councils, it is taken as a first charge on the science budget.

Mr. Battle: Is the Minister saying that any surplus created as a result of fluctuation is the cost that will be shared but not the initial subscription, which will still be borne by PPARC? Is that correct?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, it is. To make it quite clear, we are talking about the fluctuations which presented such a problem for the research councils, but I hope that we have now dealt adequately with that matter. I congratulate Sir John Cadogan and all those responsible in all the research councils on having reached an agreement that removes the difficulties caused by the fluctuations.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: If costs escalate during the construction phase of the LHC and it is found to be 20 per cent, or 50 per cent, more expensive than currently estimated, what guarantees are there in the agreement that it will not be an extra cost to be taken out of the research councils' budget?

Mr. Hunt: There are some very tight guarantees within the very satisfactory agreement. I have all the details here but, rather than taking up further time, I am happy to supply them to the hon. Gentleman later.
Let me put it around the other way. There are prospects for other countries to contribute to the LHC project. I look forward to key non-member states, especially the United States, Japan and Canada, participating scientifically and financially in the LHC project because I feel that they have much to offer. The agreement reached provides the best possible incentives to those nations to join the LHC project. CERN member states have made a clear commitment to build the LHC and any non-member states' contributions will be used to accelerate and enhance the project. I understand that CERN management has already initiated discussions with potential partners, and the United Kingdom remains ready and willing to offer every possible assistance. I understand that the prospects are encouraging, and I greatly welcome that.
I have today provided a written statement on the overall allocation of the science budget for 1995–96.

Dr. Michael Clark: While my right hon. Friend is talking about particle physics, may I remind him that molecular chemistry is also very important? The Royal Society of Chemistry is concerned that, as large sums of money are spent on expensive physics experiments, some of the more basic needs of chemistry departments in universities are ignored. Will he assure the House and the Royal Society of Chemistry that he has taken note of those needs?

Mr. Hunt: I have had a fascinating time visiting key chemistry departments across the country. I visited a number of those operating at the leading edge of chemistry and I hope that they will take from today's announcement a clear message that we are committed to maintaining our leading edge in chemistry.
In the past week, I managed to visit Imperial college and—I have to think carefully about where I was every day of the week—on Monday I was in Sheffield. Last week I was in Warwick, and I have also been to Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Loughborough and Durham. I have found it fascinating that the original divide between

chemistry, physics and biology is fast becoming flexible. We have to capture the imagination of the moment when looking ahead, and to some extent the old disciplines are becoming increasingly out of date. Although they are important in certain material respects, we have to raise our sights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr Clark) said, to highlight the important of key areas. I hope that when my hon. Friend has a chance to read the booklet that deals with the science budget, a copy of which I have placed in the Library and which is also available on Internet through the CCTA Government information service, he will appreciate the priority that we attach to science.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend mentioned the CCTA, which has just established its new headquarters in my constituency. While he is touring the country, will he visit CCTA in Norwich before too long, and the university of East Anglia, which is doing excellent science research?

Mr. Hunt: I shall be in Norwich next Friday on my tour of the United Kingdom. I am primarily going to look at the work of the John Innes centre which is doing pioneering work. I must talk to my hon. Friend about visiting CCTA, which was opened by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and about seeing the interesting work being done by the university of East Anglia.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have also been able to make a visit, but to somewhere even more exotic than Norwich. I visited the Faraday base in the Antarctic last week. The base is due to close in 1995-96. What guarantee can the Chancellor give that the very valuable research into the ozone layer will not be lost when it closes? When was the decision taken to hand over the Faraday base to the Ukraine?

Mr. Hunt: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman was on the Faraday base, he was able to talk to the British Antarctic Survey, because it decided to close the base. He can obtain all the information that he needs from the BAS.

Mr. Banks: Indeed, but I was talking to the scientists based there. I think that there might be a divergence of opinion between the BAS in Cambridge and the scientists on the Faraday base. I understand that the Chancellor is not able to answer my question now, but will he perhaps consider it and let me have a response so that I can pass on the information?

Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to come to the House in the course of his world tour. If he has a little more time, I would be happy to see him and hear his report from the front line.
Let me recap. We have now made available £1,281.675 million for distribution. That very high figure demonstrates the priority that the Government attach to science, but that priority can never be taken for granted. There are always other deserving calls on public expenditure, so we have to use whatever funding we have to the best possible effect.
I am delighted to have Sir John Cadogan, the first Director General of the Research Councils, to advise me. He has carried out a detailed review of research council activities. He of course wanted to hear a wide range of opinion, to hear the voice of scientists at the bench and the voice of the user community, so he visited a total of


76 scientific groups in receipt of research council funding. Users' views were explored in a series of informal discussions, and Sir John has also had meetings with the chief executives of the research councils, who are themselves highly eminent scientists. In total, he listened personally to the views of around 300 people, as well as being a member of the foresight steering group.
The White Paper anticipated that the director general would be aided by a small advisory group, a sort of inner circle. I believe that my predecessor, now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shared the view that that was perhaps not the best way forward. Sir John has demonstrated that we can improve on my right hon. Friend's prediction. He has created not an inner circle but an open circle, into which people from right across industry and the science base have been able to feed their views. Sir John has also worked with the chief executives to establish a set of high-priority initiatives, for which I am pleased to announce that we have been able to make available £67 million from the science budget. Those programmes will be targeted on three main areas.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has effectively answered the recent criticism in the New Scientist about the openness of the consultation and what Sir John has been doing?

Mr. Hunt: Indeed, there has been some misunderstanding. I did my best to clear it up when I was giving evidence in another place. My effective answer is, as my hon. Friend says, the immense amount of work that Sir John has done in consulting such a wide group of people.
The three main areas—

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunt: I shall first tell the House that the three main areas identified as targets for the programmes are support for interaction with industry, the maintenance of top-class people, and strategic and underpinning science. I shall go through each in turn, but first I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Bray: The document outlining the allocation of the science budget is similar to what has appeared in previous years, but any account of the process is missing. The right hon. Gentleman has just outlined what Sir John has being doing and I am sure that it has been very thorough, but there is no public record of it. In particular, there is no advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Would it not make much more sense if we had a public record of that consultative process? For example, do the priority initiatives, which were allocated some 5 per cent, of the science budget—not a large percentage— represent initiatives that the research councils would not have taken, but were, in some way, imposed by the right hon. Gentleman on the advice of Sir John, or do they represent shifts from some consensus process? Research councils are bodies with their own royal charters, they have a statutory basis and they are bound to report. What is their advice and what is the advice of the advisers to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hunt: I was not in post when the decision to abolish the ABRC was taken, although I strongly

supported it. As I understood, it was supported by the former Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who said that the Labour party happily acknowledged that the ABRC needed to be abolished. Having made that decision, the White Paper then trailed the notion that there should be an inner circle.

Dr. Bray: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I would answer the hon. Gentleman's point if he could contain himself. We moved on to the process which I have outlined. The public record of that will be found in the work of the research councils. They have discussed with Sir John the way in which they saw their priorities. Of course, it will also be revealed in the work of the technology foresight panels. I make it clear that I intend to publish the reports of the 15 panels, which contain work on identifying key priority areas. That has been a tremendous exercise in consultation and I undertake that those reports will be published. They will give hon. Members the opportunity to see processes through which we have been able to identify priorities.
We fed the emerging conclusions from the technology foresight panels into the consideration, too. The private discussions between Sir John Cadogan and the scientists in the laboratory are not a matter of public record. However, in a debate of this nature, I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to ask questions and we will do our best to answer them. The great strength in the science, engineering and technology base lies in consensus and extensive consultation; we just need to build on that.

Dr. Bray: There may be greater agreement, but there cannot be consensus unless the views of other people are clearly stated. Although I do not know the precise source of the Opposition statement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it was nevertheless the Government who combined the roles of the two advisory bodies in a single council. The right hon. Gentleman has not dispensed with the advisory council altogether. What is that council's role in the allocation?

Mr. Hunt: The Director General of Research Councils advises me on overall priorities for the best application of the science budget. In reaching his conclusions, he does many things. Perhaps the most important work that he does is to consult with the research councils. He has been conducting a review of research council activity, and his report of the review will be included in the forward look document, which we shall publish in May. His report will then be available for debate and discussion.
The priority initiatives, I am advised, are, in the main, those of the individual research councils. I understand that, last year, the 5 per cent, figure, to which I referred, was 1 per cent., so there has been a substantial increase. That means, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, that 95 per cent, of the budget is still very much linked to the research councils decision-making process. The initiatives have been allocated money, but the decisions on who won support on which projects were supported were still a matter for the research councils.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Would not it have been much more useful to hon. Members if the research councils' advice to Sir John Cadogan, on which today's decisions


are based, had been published before the debate, instead of our having to wait until May when the decisions will have been enacted?

Mr. Hunt: I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I was talking about the Director General of Research Councils' review of research council activity, on which he will report later this year. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the internal advice that I receive as Cabinet Minister responsible for science, to which I pay attention and which, of course, has never been published. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am explaining, as best I can, the detailed process behind Sir John giving me his advice.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I am talking about the internal advice, which has never been published. The internal advice comes to the chief scientific adviser, Sir William Stewart, and me. We deliberate on it and reach our decisions. Our decision is based on conclusions from several sources, including those from the technology foresight panels and their final report will be published. Consultations are conducted in the research councils, in which Sir John is of course involved. The way in which research councils view their priorities will be published in their reports, and there is a range of considerations in the Director General's review of research councils. He will make his report available to me and I shall publish it in the "Forward Look" document.
There are a number of different aspects to consider. I think that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was referring to the internal advice, which, of course, as Ministers know, is not published.

Dr. Bray: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hunt: I should like to make a little progress, or Madam Deputy Speaker will disapprove of the length of my speech.
The first of the three themes to which I have referred, interaction with industry, means not getting the science base to do industry's work for it but working to ensure that the science base and industry have a better idea of each other's strengths and needs and determine where co-operation may be to their mutual advantage.
My top priority is to build on our tremendous response to the scheme initiated by my predecessor known as the ROPAs—the "Realising our Potential" awards. Under that scheme, 239 projects have been funded by three research councils. I am pleased to announce that the ROPA scheme will be extended to cover all the research councils. I have decided to allocate additional funding of almost £15 million in the next financial year, implying a full-year spend of £35 million.
Let me remind hon. Members briefly of how the scheme works. Our premise is that industry has already identified many good researchers in the science base and is funding them to carry out basic or strategic research. Researchers in receipt of appropriate funding from industry can apply, for a ROPA if they would like to pursue original research completely of their own choosing—true curiosity-driven research.
"Realising our Potential" awards are not subject to conventional peer review, but proposals must be practical and original. Such awards will not replace the traditional grant award, but should serve to refresh the parts the peer review system sometimes fails to reach.
The LINK scheme is altogether different. It provides an excellent framework for jointly funded research between the public and private sectors. To date, more than 550 projects worth nearly £300 million have been supported, many of which have led to new products being marketed by United Kingdom companies.
The LINK scheme will be an important vehicle for implementing the foresight outcomes and I am therefore setting aside £3 million to stimulate new programmes in priority areas. Contributions from LINK partners should result overall in an additional £12 million being spent on new programmes in 1995–96.
The second theme is support of top-class people, which is another clear priority. We announced an expansion last year of the Royal Society's prestigious university research fellowship scheme from 200 to 240 places, and we shall expand that scheme still further to 255 appointments.
The Royal Society also plans to launch a pilot fellowship scheme for top-class younger scientists who are trying to get on to the research career ladder. I am delighted to announce additional Government support for those fellowships, which will be known as the Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships. They will be targeted at scientists who have just completed their PhDs.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I am sure that those schemes are very laudable and I am pleased that the Government recognise the importance of encouraging top-class scientists and attracting more good people into science, but is not the Chancellor concerned about the general poor career prospects for Government scientists and, in particular, the large increase in the number of workers on short-term contracts and the low salaries of Government-funded scientists?
The Chancellor recently took credit for several people returning from abroad to work in this country, but they have done so largely as a result of work by charities such as the Wellcome Trust, which have identified the problem and have attempted to provide better career structures for research scientists? Should not the Chancellor be considering the matter to discover whether such schemes could be introduced into the generality of Government-funded science in this country?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady is right. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I visited the Wellcome Foundation, we met several scientists who had been attracted back—in a brain-gain dimension—to the United Kingdom to work here as a result of a combination of factors. We discussed those factors with the scientists.
The factors included issues such as a free enterprise society, a society that takes scientists seriously and a society in which scientists can work among the best in the world. I vividly recall a series of reasons. Quite often, scientists had taken a drop in earnings to work among the best in the world. They explained that money was not a consideration because they were forgoing money. They could perhaps earn more money elsewhere, but they wanted to work beside the best in the world. That carries with it an obligation on all of us who are involved with


the science base to ensure that there is adequate remuneration for the people involved in leading-edge research.
I have been considering ways in which we can improve the situation and I will refer to them in a moment. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) should be aware that remuneration and contracts are matters for the research councils, which take the decisions that they believe result in the best targeting of resources.
When I visited the laboratories, I found that there was much concern about the £400 grant for laboratory equipment. I am therefore pleased to announce that I shall increase that by 50 per cent, so that £600 will be available. I will consider how I can help to get money through to the laboratories and to the people who need the money to purchase equipment.
Remuneration is a matter for the research councils. Of course we give guidance, but ultimately remuneration is a matter for the research councils.
I hope that the Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships will assist scientists who have just completed their PhDs. I recall that "The Rising Tide" report showed that that was a point at which women tended to drop out of science. By targeting the fellowships, I hope that we can find ways of enabling women to continue in science so that they have real equality of opportunity with men in the science world. The hon. Member for Selly Oak may be aware that I have asked Lynda Sharp to head a special unit in the Office of Science and Technology to ensure that we have a broad cross-section of women and men giving their talents to science.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Chancellor give way?

Mr. Hunt: I would like to make a little more progress. I have been speaking for nearly 45 minutes and I have a few more points to cover.
I am pleased to announce funding to enable the Royal Academy of Engineering to introduce a programme of secondments to industry for academic engineers. Greater interaction between our universities and industry is just as important for engineers as it is for pure scientists. I look forward to real benefits deriving from that programme.
The third theme is basic and strategic science. Last year, we announced additional support for chemistry. I am now extending support to mainstream physics, mathematics and medicine. I will be launching a pilot programme to provide, through three of the research councils, additional funding to universities for equipment to match funding from industrial partners. As I have already said, I intend to increase the research training support grant from £400 to £600 a year for 11,000 students. That includes the increase in grant from £75 to £125 for social science and economics students.
We have identified several areas where additional support for first-class strategic science should make us better placed to respond to new opportunities. Details of that are set out in the allocations booklet. However, I would like to give the House a flavour of some of the work that we are supporting because I believe that it is work that will make a real contribution to wealth creation and the quality of life and a real difference to our lives and to the lives of our children.
I am allocating additional funding to the Medical and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Councils for the genome initiative. They are doing ground-breaking work, which will result in a comprehensive understanding of our genetic make-up, which in turn will provide the platform for a step-change in the quality of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease as we move into the 21st century. The gene responsible for cystic fibrosis has already been identified, and new treatments are being pursued in Edinburgh and at the Royal Brompton hospital.
The Medical Research Council has developed an effective partnership with the Wellcome Trust. Individually, these organisations have a very strong track record, but together they make an even bigger impact. I was delighted to hear a few moments ago that, following my announcement earlier today, the Wellcome Trust is planning to increase its own commitment to genome research.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I recently visited the Wellcome Trust to meet a number of the top medical scientists who have been attracted to work in this country by our outstanding reputation for medical research. We have also visited the Institute of Psychiatry, which is attached to the Maudsley hospital in south London and which was voted by its peers in a survey last year to be the best of its kind in the world.
My right hon. Friend and I are absolutely committed to maintaining the highest possible standards in medical research, and to ensuring that the results feed effectively into day-to-day practice in the national health service.
The NHS R and D strategy is the first of its kind in the world. The Cochrane Centre, which performs systematic reviews of health research, was highly praised this week in the report by the Health Select Committee. My right hon. Friend has announced that she will implement the key recommendations of the Culyer report, which will place the funding of medical research in this country on a secure and stable footing for the future.
Medicine is advancing at lightning speed. It is vital that the NHS keeps up with the pace and that the treatment it provides is as effective as possible, based on the most up-to-date knowledge. Our policies are working successfully towards that objective as well as boosting the UK's deserved international reputation in this field.
I intend to provide additional funds for the Natural Environment Research Council's work in environmental diagnostics. This will enable the council to carry out further comprehensive environmental audits, and help to develop sustainable business strategies for waste management in manufacturing industry in close co-operation with users and the regulators. That will bring benefits for business and local people.
We are putting additional money into the work of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council on producing industrial materials from plants. That will meet with approval from my hon. Friends.
I have, of course, been necessarily selective. Indeed, there was much more that I wanted to say, but I wanted to follow the practice of giving way to interventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."] I am being tempted to continue, but I will not. I want to hear what other hon. Members have to say.
We are supporting tremendous leading-edge developments, with huge potential benefits for all of us. I want that to be more widely understood. We must encourage appreciation of the contribution of science and engineering to our economic and social well-being.
I am therefore very pleased to be able to announce an increase in the central public understanding of the science budget. Thanks in large part to the work of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the first national science week last spring was a huge success, and I intend to make it an annual event. This year's science week will run from 17 to 26 March. I remind hon. Members that they have until only next Monday to suggest experiments, for which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has volunteered to be a human guinea-pig. May I express the hope that all hon. Members will make a particular effort to support events taking place in their constituencies?
The Government are willing to devote substantial funds in support of our excellent scientists and engineers. We are determined to do so in ways deliberately designed to bring good returns to the economy and people of the United Kingdom. That is the philosophy underlying the allocation of the science budget, which I commend to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am pleased to be able to take part in this short debate and I shall try to keep my remarks brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute.
Many people who work in technology, science and engineering will be pleased that this debate is taking place at all. We can discuss the science budget which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has announced, but also the direction which policy in this area should be taking.
The debate is important because science is not always at the centre of our political debates. It is an issue which tends to intimidate people and put them off. It can sometimes get pushed to the sidelines, because many of us do not have the scientific grounding that might be necessary to participate in such a debate. I absolve all my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber this evening from that charge, but some of us who are lay persons may feel that, on occasion, jargon can dominate these debates.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Lady confirm that science has not always been at the centre of debates within the Labour party? Did not the Labour party propose at the last general election that the science Minister should be demoted from Cabinet rank?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has chosen to intervene right at the beginning of my speech on such a note. I must perhaps give my age away by saying that I first became interested in politics at school in the early 1960s when, with a general election pending, Harold Wilson excited many people with talk of the "white heat" of the technological revolution.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: rose—

Mrs. Taylor: I do not want to labour this point, as I want to be brief. All of us have the responsibility for generating not only interest in science, but some hope for

the future. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has chosen to try to make this a partisan issue, as that was not the spirit in which the Minister spoke.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: I will, but then I must move on.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I, too, recall the days of the 1960s, when both my parents were research scientists. Many of those scientists of the 1960s and 1970s remember the extent to which the promises of the white heat of the technological revolution were so badly betrayed by every Labour Government.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example later which will show that many opportunities which were taken up under previous Labour Governments have been missed recently. Government assistance to industry was very productive under Labour Governments, and that is something of which we can be proud. As someone who has spent many years studying or teaching economic history, I have no doubt of the importance to our future of investment in science, technology and engineering.
The Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned economic development and medical research, and he also referred to the vital area—which I think still does not get sufficient attention—of environmental protection, which does affect the quality of life for us all. We all have the responsibility to make sure that decisions in this area are made on a long-term basis, so that we get the full benefit of all the decisions that we are talking about this evening.
We must emphasise the need to get away from the short-termism that has dogged so much of British politics, and the British economy, in recent years. While there was much in what the Chancellor said with which I agreed and welcomed, there is something of that short-termism that is endemic to the Government's attitude to science. The right hon. Gentleman, who wants to look ahead, must be wary of that.
The Chancellor gave us some details—great detail in some areas—about the proposals for the science budget that he announced today. There may be other questions, such as whether the factor for inflation is as high as it should be, but I welcome some of the questions that he mentioned.
For example, the Chancellor referred to the improvement in spending on environmental diagnostics, which I very much welcome. It is important, however, that research in that area should not merely focus on waste management, but on a range of environmental protection issues that will be important as a way of improving the quality of our environment and will have important economic benefits. The amount of environmental regulation will intensify, at a European and an international level, and the countries that get ahead with monitoring equipment and technological development in that field will have significant markets on which to draw, and there could be some important economic benefits. I welcome some aspects of the Minister's proposals.
The hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and some of my hon. Friends mentioned the report in today's issue of the New Scientist headed, "Former science adviser slams secret carve-up". In his answer, the


Minister did not take the charges as seriously as he should. They were the comments of someone who served as the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils for 11 years, who was close to decision making and who knew the pressures on Ministers and what had been promised, for example, in the 1993 White Paper.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for science policy and for open government. He has a responsibility to consult and I agree with what he said about consulting a wider circle than the inner circle, but he has to be seen to be making his decisions as openly as possible. I trust that, when he has been in the job longer and is not bound by decisions made some time ago, his responsibilities as a science Minister will not conflict with his responsibilities as the Minister for open government. It is important that we establish the principle that there should be as much openness as possible.
On the specifics of the science budget, the Minister outlined the ways in which the departmental budget has been increased this year. He should not adopt such a blinkered attitude, or regard the science budget as simply the budget that goes through his Department. I understand that he cannot say so publicly this evening, but I hope that he shares my concern about the fact that, while his departmental science budget has increased, albeit temporarily, the total of the science budgets in all Government Departments has decreased, which is causing much concern.
I could go into detail and give the figures for the Department of Trade and Industry, or state what has happened to the research and development budget in defence—the fact that no one is taking up the opportunities that exist for defence diversification. Before the Minister boasts too much about his departmental successes, he should consider what has happened to science budgets overall.
I do not want to spend the whole evening bandying about figures that relate to the Chancellor's announcement. I hope that he will acknowledge what his Cabinet Office press release said at the end of November. It made it clear that the science budget for 1994–95 has increased by 1.9 per cent., but that it will be frozen in cash terms next year and that, between 1994–95 and 1997–98, his departmental science budget will decrease by 1.1 per cent. I am sure that the Minister will understand that any welcome with which we greet the fact that his departmental budget has increased this year must be muted because we know what is in the pipeline.
I hope that the Minister will share my concern about the figures published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. As has been said, it produced an effective briefing for the debate. Its figures show that research and development expenditure in the United Kingdom has declined in the past five years and that Government spending on research and development has declined as a proportion of all that spending. The figures in "The Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994" look show that the Government provided £5 billion out of £11 billion spent on research and development in 1985–86, but the figure was down to £4.3 billion out of £12.2 billion in 199293. I do not for one moment say that all research –and development should be Government-funded, but that is a worrying trend and one that the Minister glossed over.
Although we welcome aspects of the Minister's statement, such as the fact that his departmental budget has improved this year, it is not good enough to look at one narrow departmental budget alone. We must consider the Government's attitude across all Departments. Ministers and Departments are clearly pulling in different directions. Also, the chopping and changing is worrying to all people involved in scientific research and development. The fact that the Minister's budget is increasing this year, but will be frozen next and then reduced is sending the wrong signals to those involved in scientific investigation.
An obsession with market forces or market-based research should not blinker the Government, when it comes to investing in this country's future. The Minister mentioned his discussions with scientists—as he toured research laboratories—about the free enterprise society. Many other countries regard themselves as free-enterprise models, but they do not ignore or marginalise the critical importance of Government investment. They regard Government spending in that field not simply as expenditure, but as investment in the future. That thinking is essential as part of the longer-term perspective. Even the Minister's figures in the forward look prove the need to think in that way.
I mentioned short-termism, which is a major problem that should concern all of us. Short-term funding, whether by Government, industry or in universities, can threaten and lead to the break-up of research teams. We have witnessed much uncertainty, and university programmes have been cut. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) mentioned one important problem at university level—the rapid and incredible growth in the number of short-term contracts, which should worry hon. Members on both sides of the House. That feature is very worrying. Ten years ago, 11,000 people were on short-term contracts, recently the figure was 22,000 and it is growing all the time. Clearly, that is no good for the staff concerned. It worries them greatly. Nor can it be good if research projects and those working on them are under a cloud as regards future funding. The Minister could have dealt with those difficulties in his speech this evening.
Short termism has jeopardised the benefit to the British economy of British inventions. We could all give long lists of items, such as liquid crystal displays, developed in Britain but manufactured abroad so that the benefits have gone to other countries. Another item that was mentioned is transputers. The advanced microprocessor chip, which was developed by a British company, INMOS, is a good example of co-operation between Government and industry. Some of us remember that INMOS was supported by the last Labour Government through the National Enterprise Board. The Conservative Government sold INMOS to Thorn EMI, which quickly sold it on to a French-Italian group. That was clearly a missed chance for Britain and it did us a great deal of harm.
However, that is in the past. The serious point is that this country is still missing opportunities for the future, particularly in terms of potential for developing information super highways. Those present enormous opportunities for Britain in terms of potential for educational programmes, which would give our children access to information and new experiences in education that were never dreamed of in our youth. The


development of information super-highways would also bring enormous economic development and benefits, were Britain to get ahead.
Britain possesses some fantastic advantages. We have some of the world's leading talents in television and film production, and outstanding talents in educational publishing and writing, animation and computer games programming. Wonderful opportunities exist, not least because 80 per cent, of electronic information stored in the world is in English. We have hardware and software industries; we are a small island that could easily be cabled; and our private sector is eager to invest. So what is holding us back?
The report of the all-party Department of Trade and Industry Select Committee said:
There is concern that government policies could be hindering or not sufficiently encouraging the development of the most advanced infrastructure and services, and that this could result in the UK falling behind other countries, with damaging consequences.
The danger is that, instead of grasping the opportunity to become the world's leader with all the consequential economic and educational benefits, unless the Government change their policy, Britain will fall further behind. The Minister has shown that he takes those matters seriously. I hope that he will lobby and talk to his right hon. Friends to get a change of direction in some crucial areas.
We also need a change of direction on post-16 qualifications in education. The number of young people taking science A-levels has decreased, yet more people than ever are taking and succeeding at GCSE. We must reform A-levels and have a broader educational base post-16, as other countries do. If we moved in that direction, it would strengthen our educational base and scientific awareness. In the long term, that would benefit everyone.
I should have liked to raise many more points. I hope that the Chancellor accepts that the temporary increase in his science budget, welcome though it is, should not allow him to become complacent. He still has much work to do, especially to counter the problems in so many areas and other Departments. I hope that he will take on board in particular the points that I have made about information super-highways and the need for change in education.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I point out that there is a great deal of interest in this short debate. I therefore make a plea for short speeches.

Sir Giles Shaw: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall get rid of my first page for a start.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not only on how he handled the introduction to the debate, giving way with such generosity that little time is available for the rest of us, but on the fact that he has achieved, in an extremely difficult year, an increase—albeit modest—in the science budget.
We must restrain ourselves from believing that we are discussing the tenth year of a long-term plan for science and development. Sadly, that is not the case. We are in the early stages of a significant shift in how we organise, handle, fund and distribute a new sense of direction for science and investment. We are all committed to the

general objective of raising our total investment in science and technology to ensure our competitive place in the world. The Select Committee and the House agree that the long-term future for UK pic depends on that, so anything that my right hon. Friend can do to increase the commitment, even if his Department has been unable to break free from the problems of public expenditure restraints, should be welcomed. What we are and must remain concerned about is the long-term directions which the Government have planned through the active work in my right hon. Friend's Department.
On the specific proposals, I shall leave on one side the flak which Lord Phillips raised on the consultative process. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr Bray) is heavily engaged in that matter.
On distribution, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has secured an increase of £14.95 million for the competitive scheme under the ROPA initiative. That is particularly welcome because, as my right hon. Friend said, it helps to improve interaction with industry, which must be right. The shorter time span between scientific research and innovative technology in any of the industrial sectors contacted must be welcomed. I trust that that increase means that many more researchers will qualify to be funded for strategic research in industry, which will help to alleviate some of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
I am particularly glad to note that, in the section entitled
Enhancement and Underpinning of Strategic Science",
the Medical Research Council is to be awarded an additional £4 million for research into the genome project. The Select Committee is currently engaged in that issue, and this is a suitable time for my right hon. Friend to decide that that vital international research should have a boost in funding.
I welcome, too, the additional funding for the bio-processing industries, which, as far as I can understand them—it is a complicated industrial activity— are at the leading edge of international competitiveness. They have been Cinderellas in their part of the industry. I am glad to see that that has been acknowledged and that they, too, are receiving a further increase.
It is clear that the increased amount available from a lower-than-forecast inflation factor have, by and large, benefited all the research councils in some way. Equally, I am absolutely clear that although research councils' chief executives have had the good grace to welcome the modest addition, the total expenditure must be of concern to the House.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury mentioned science spending by other Departments. The core role of the Office of Science and Technology is to re-organise the mission, composition and chairmanship of the research councils. In the barely 12 months in which that has been done, it has achieved a major breakthrough in the structural organisation of science. "Realising our Potential", the White Paper on which all those initiatives are based, made it clear that science funding should be largely directed to projects that
improve our national competitiveness and the quality of life.
That means science funding throughout and beyond Government into industry and the world at large. I am anxious that the direction of OST policy in helping that


enormous objective to go forward must include more influence on departmental budgets and how they enter the Government's priority.
I suspect that we shall battle it out when we come to the first technology recommendations that my right hon. Friend said would be introduced in due course from the 15 panels. If the four sites initiative means anything, it must mean that there should emerge from the assessment an agreed national series of objectives that should lead to the prioritising of scientific endeavour and, thus, scientific expenditure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have that firmly in his eye. When we discuss total scientific objectives, we must mean a complete science base— Government, all Departments, industry, the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations. The engineers are always active in such matters and I am sure that Sir William Barlow will be glad to hear of the small amounts that my right hon. Friend has been able to offer today. That is where the crunch will come.
I hope that later in the year we shall have more time than is available now. As I recall, the Select Committee's report, "The Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994" recommended that we should have an annual debate. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend has now responded to the report and it looks as though he is prepared to use what he encouragingly describes as his best endeavours. I wish to see my right hon. Friend's best endeavours deliver a full debate on science when the "Forward Look" report is published in May.
I welcome the initiatives taking place in the research councils to ensure that industry's views are represented on the councils, which must be helpful. That is one reason why we are keen to know how the priorities in the council budgets were chosen. We must also encourage the initiative manufacturing programme which was launched in July 1944 and the ROPAs—"Realising our Potential" awards—to which my right hon. Friend referred.
I shall skip much of the next two pages of my speech and mention one or two other aspects of general science. One of the problems touched on in the exchange of questions on the LHC was the issue of attribution and European Union funding. Although the exercise conducted on the LHC was to discover how to recover our money from fluctuation, the Select Committees of both Houses have criticised the practice of attribution of European Union receipts to domestic budgets.
The Parliamentary Secretary may not be able to comment on that subject today, but it is worth further examination by the OST. The Department appears to show that receipts from the EU are, in some cases, attributed to the science budget, which is consequently adjusted so that overall spending remains as planned. We cannot welcome that as an old Chinese custom continuing when talking about the new priorities that we attach to science. I think that in the current year, £12.5 million of such provision comes from the EU, although the future year's figure is slightly lower. If .he has the time, the Parliamentary Secretary might say how much EU money is generally additional to the science budget. In its first report the Select Committee commented on that.
The efficiency unit scrutiny has also exercised the Select Committee recently. The Government have set in place measures to encourage the science base in the

desired direction, while leaving research councils the autonomy to determine how to spend the funds allocated to them. That is welcome, but the inclusion of research council institutes in the recent efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments was regrettable. Such institutes are funded by research councils because they perceive a need for them—it is not for the Government to try and second-guess those directly involved. There has been some duplication and it is no doubt wise to try to restrict it. But if there is a desire to avoid duplication at all costs, research councils should have their entrepreneurial instincts restrained rather than encouraged.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed to respond to many of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that it is consistent with our view that there should be a comprehensive statement of all the scientific investments being made and all the scientific endeavours to match the investment. We require plenty of information. We look forward to the time when the Office of Science and Technology fulfils the Select Committee's long-term objective to become the Government Department for all science, however funded.
I am glad that the Government will keep under consideration the extent to which additional information on university research should also be included in the "Forward Look". In the section on my right hon. Friend's response, dealing with the reduction in Government spending on civil research and development, the Department states that the fall of expenditure on civil research and development is largely due to the fast breeder research being wound down. I am not certain that that equates entirely with the position of the advanced technology programme in the Department of Trade and Industry. I suspect that changes in that are not adequately matched by the receipts from the DTI's launch aid initiative. I should be grateful to receive any information on that.
I note that the Government agree with the Select Committee's view on the development of output measures, the effectiveness of research and development and the co-ordinating role of the OST as the effective guardian of the Government's science policy. We anticipate seeing that role positively developing in the "Forward Look" report due out in May. I believe that the Select Committee will welcome a wide range of agreement with the recommendations in our report.
The main theme, which no debate on science and technology can avoid, is that it is essential that we lift the total national investment in the nation's science base and the nation's competitive technology. The OST is to be congratulated on the efforts that it has made in a relatively short time to start gathering in all the structural information necessary to lay the foundations for future development. The Department is becoming, not only an important custodian, but a generator of our science expenditure and the way in which it should be spent— although I accept that that is primarily related to Government expenditure. Ways must be found to broaden the initiative and I welcome anything that the Department can do to stimulate, if not to be responsible for, new scientific endeavour on a larger scale.
The new-look research councils are flourishing. They are now able to make recommendations to the OST. Sir John has done admirable work in trying to co-ordinate


that policy in a way that leads to effective leadership. The "Forward Look" and technology foresight will develop in the future.
The Department has to take the lead in the promotion of science and technology to the public. Clearly, the Department for Education has now accepted that science has a significant role to play in the curriculum, which is beginning to make its mark in our schools. But universities, industry and industrial associations should recognise that they must play their part in lifting the national level of knowledge so that, in time, we may reap the reward of improved technology and improved competitiveness in all the markets of the world.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the chance to make a few remarks on today's debate on science. While preparing for the debate I read the briefing from the Royal Society of Chemistry—I was at one time a chemist. It gave a sobering account of the feeling in chemistry laboratories in our universities and institutes of higher education, particularly among the staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) earlier mentioned the number of short-term contracts. The lecturers at higher education institutes on short-term contracts have doubled in number in the past 10 years—from 11,500 to 21,500.
The briefing also mentioned the structure of buildings. Many chemistry laboratories were built in the 1960s, when universities were expanding and new universities were being built. The fabric of many of those buildings is in disrepair and needs refurbishment. The numbers in higher education have expanded enormously in the past 10 years, for which I pay tribute to the Government. But, unfortunately, the staff and equipment have not increased pro rata. The figures given show that the spending on equipment per academic has fallen from £1,850 in 1987–88 to £1,193 per academic in 1992–93. Equipment has been cut by one third per staff member despite the fact that there are more students.
Any briefing on science research contains figures on the country's expenditure on research and development and it shows how we lag behind our industrial competitors. The most recent figures that I have are for 1992 when 2.12 per cent, of our gross domestic product was spent on research and development compared with Japan at 2.8 per cent., the United States at 2.68 per cent., Germany at 2.53 per cent, and France at 2.36 per cent. When we discount the part of the budget which goes on defence, we are lagging 1 per cent behind Germany and Japan in our expenditure on civil research and development. All the members of the Science and Technology Committee know, as do all scientists and engineers this country, that we should devote substantially more resources to research and development.
I think that my colleagues are being a little generous in congratulating the Minister on an increase in the science budget. My understanding of his letter of 29 November is that in this financial year the budget is £1,217 million at 1993 prices, in the coming financial year it will be £1,217 million, and it will drop to £1,205 million and £1,204 million in subsequent years. Over a three-year period, the Department's budget at 1993 prices will fall by 1 per cent.
Added to that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, are the cuts in research in the Department of Defence, the Department of

Trade and Industry, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and so on. Across the board it is a picture of continual belt-tightening and of a very difficult time for research scientists.
In the interests of allowing other hon. Members to participate in the debate, I will skip a few pages of my speech, as the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) did earlier.
I turn now to a matter that is outside the science budget. I know that the Glaxo-Wellcome bid is strictly a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I think that it is of interest to the Office of Science and Technology. I invite the Minister to give us his Department's view on the takeover when he replies to the debate. Perhaps it does not have a view on the matter.
In a takeover bid worth £8.9 billion, the world's second largest pharmaceutical company is seeking to take over the world's 20th largest company. It would form not only the largest company in Britain, but the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, with a turnover of £28 billion. Britain has an excellent record in the pharmaceutical industry; it is the one industry sector where Britain is a world leader. We invest heavily in research and development and the industry's primary customer is the national health service, which provides a very large home market.
Glaxo and Wellcome invest about 15 per cent, of their yearly sales in research and development. In commenting on the takeover, a newspaper article has said that there certainly will be job cuts in research and development if the bid goes through. I know that the Wellcome Trust supports the takeover as it could mean an increase in research. Combining the two companies would mean a rationalisation of facilities and production and a rationalisation of large areas of research.
In the New Scientist of 26 January, Sir Richard Sykes, the chief executive of Glaxo and its former research director, admits:
the planned 'rationalization' and streamlining of the research teams of the two companies, one of the main factors being used to generate support for the take-over among shareholders, will inevitably lead to job losses among researchers.
If that is true, we will lose PhDs and post-doctorate research workers from our industry to the United States. More importantly, it will have an adverse effect on the morale of scientists working in that sector, in higher education and throughout the scientific community. Any job losses in production and research which result from the takeover will hit morale hard in our leading industry sector.
I ask the Office of Science and Technology to look at the takeover bid very carefully. Is it in the interests of British science and our pharmaceutical industry for the bid go ahead? I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that in his reply. It is not good enough for the Government to sit back and say, "No, this is a free market and that is the way it operates; it is not for us to comment or have a view about it", when research and the morale of many of our best people may be affected by the takeover.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am mindful of the time and your call for short speeches, I will make only a comment or two. I will


also refrain from reminding my right hon. Friend that he is welcome to visit Reading university in my constituency whenever he wishes.

Mr. David Hunt: I arranged today to visit Reading university. I shall suggest a number of dates to my hon. Friend so that I can ensure that the visit takes place at his convenience as well as mine.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should explain that I did not raise that point by prior arrangement with my right hon. Friend. I could easily make a whole speech congratulating him not only on his success in raising extra money for the science budget, but on the enthusiasm and clarity with which he presented the situation tonight.
I was glad that he referred to the "Realising our Potential" awards scheme and the excellent work performed by the Royal Academy of Engineering. I also pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Office of Science and Technology. I believe that the briefing notes which it has produced for hon. Members have resulted in a greater understanding of the subject.
I shall pick up on two points which are not meant to be viewed as criticism. First, I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones): it is a very serious situation. I think that part of the problem is our culture in this country which makes it difficult for us to appreciate the feeling of those in the science field. We have to raise the general image and standard of science and engineering throughout the whole community. It begins in our schools where I am afraid that the standard of science teaching and interest remains deplorable in many cases. It is an urgent situation with which we must deal immediately.
I am very pleased that extra money is to be allocated to the LINK programme. However, I ask my right hon. Friend to look seriously at some of the LINK programmes. While the concept of the programmes is welcomed by all, some of them appear to be over-bureaucratic and they are not producing effective results—in fact, I think that some of them are a total waste of money. That does not mean that the concept is at fault; it is a very good idea.
I realise that there are difficulties, but I ask my right hon. Friend to examine ways in which long-term development facilities could be made available for research and development in this country. Other countries, such as Japan and Germany, have achieved it very successfully and I think that we should re-examine the issue.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy for the way in which he presented the report and for his announcements. He clearly acknowledges that investment in the science base is money well spent—there is no difference between any of us in that respect. We may differ on the scale of investment required if British people are to enjoy a decent standard of living now and in the next century.
Britain is good at invention. On a visit to the science museum last year its director, Sir Neil Cussons, told me that more than half the exhibits and papers it

contains are associated with the inventions of British scientists. Dr. Richard Roberts, one of two Nobel prizewinners in 1993, described Britain as an
unbelievably fertile ground for ideas.
Given the flooding in some parts of the country, that may be due to our weather—it keeps us indoors many months of the year.
Sadly, Dr. Roberts left Britain with a PhD in his twenties, for North America. He commented at that time that in Britain
funding for research is really quite appalling and scientists are undervalued.
Those are strong words from a Nobel prizewinner.
An article in The Independent on 8 November 1994 stated:
Britain's best chance of again winning Nobel prizes in science would be for the Germans and Japanese to take over some of our high-tech industries.
That is a radical proposal, and not one that we should adopt.
There have been two Nobel prizes for British-based research in the past 10 years, compared with 11 the preceding decade. Over the years, Britain has suffered from the brain drain. Andy Coghlan of New Scientist pointed out that
many of those who leave are high fliers, and their departure is depriving Britain of its top talent.
Typically, overseas researchers tend to enter Britain on short-term contracts, while British emigrants leave this country for ever. I welcome the allocation report's section on enhancement of people-related programmes, and the recognition—I nearly intervened on the Chancellor on this point, but he made it eventually— that more women must be encouraged to enter science, and to remain after completing their PhDs. As members of this House, we ought to know that women have just as much to offer as men. As a nation, we must make use of all our talent, and women are a vital part of our future.
When the Prime Minister visited Japan in 1993, he said:
We have undervalued science and the application of science in the United Kingdom over the past 20 or 30 years.
He was right. Since 1981, Government spending on research and development has fallen by one third and is now a lower proportion of gross domestic product in the UK than in the competitor countries of France, Germany, Japan and the United States. Departmental spending has fallen and is expected to continue doing so.
Figures released by the Department of Trade and Industry last December and published in the Financial Times show that its research and development expenditure will fall to £245 million in the present financial year, from £310 in 1993–94 and £500 million a year in the late 1980s.
Britain cannot compete with the low-wage economies of the Pacific rim, but it can through technology. That was recognised as early as the 1930s. A year ago, the eminent journalist Will Hutton wrote:
It is common knowledge that the British economy has been in relative decline for more than a century, but what is less remarked upon is that had Britain stayed wedded to its textile, coal and heavy engineering economy of the 1920s, the decline would have been even more marked. Yet from the early 1930s


to the early 1950s, there was a transformation in the country's economic base. This was led by technology and, in particular, by state support of science.
Since then, we have seen the squandering of this inheritance through the insistence that a free financial system and reduction of state support will be enough to drive innovation.
I hope that that is changing, and I know from the comments by Conservative Members that they want change as much as I do. The best way to secure Britain's survival as a modern, industrialised nation whose people enjoy a high standard of living is to invest in the future.
I congratulate the Minister on listening positively to the wishes of the science community. I welcome the allocation paper's reference also to public understanding of science. It is no use pretending that we are not technical. This week, I attended an interesting meeting of the all—party group on cable and satellite, of which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is chairman. As I left, I heard one hon. Member—who I am glad is not present—say to his researcher, "You put that on the computer, because I'm not very technical." We must change that attitude. British people are good at invention and technical innovation; we should be proud of that and shout it from the rooftops.
Last year's science week was worth while, and I am pleased that it is to become an annual event. I remember being at the science museum at the crack of dawn with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), to give a live interview on BBC breakfast television. A 1920s steamship engine was working behind us. It is fitting that that hon. Gentleman went on to become shadow Secretary of State for Transport.
One cannot overemphasise the importance to the nation of placing science policy high on the Government's agenda. Without properly funded research, there will be more debates of the sort that we heard yesterday, concerning further cutbacks in the country's social, education, health and police services.
Can the Minister say the extent to which research grant applications will be tied to the rigid goals of wealth creation? Is not it the nature of pure research that it must often be undertaken without achieving a specified profit? Sometimes there is no product—or if there is, that is serendipity and long into the future. How will the Government ensure that total research is maintained when departmental budgets rise and fall? It seems likely that money spent on military research will further decrease.
Baroness Thatcher once said:
Transistors were not discovered by the entertainment industry seeking new ways of marketing pop music, but rather by people working on wave mechanics and solid—state physics.
That shows the value of the basic research that was done in inventing transistors in those days. The reality of the problem—I think all hon. Members know this— is that funding could be limitless. I am sure that, between them, research councils could dream up projects worthy of investment that would far outstrip the budget of any party in the House but I believe that there is a shortfall now that is damaging Britain's future.
The importance, of encouraging industry to invest cannot be over—emphasised. I am pleased to see the description of the multiplier idea in the paper released

today. It is important that the Government, research councils and industry work together, provide the funds, to work on specific projects of interest to all of them.
A second problem was identified in the Select Committee's report last year, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The problem is also exposed in Will Hutton's new book entitled, "The State We're In"—short—termism. Giles Coren's article inThe Times this week tells the story of the British inventor and designer, James Dyson. Mr. Dyson is the man who invented the ballbarrow. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have one of these at home, but it is a wheelbarrow based on a ball, which never gets stuck in the mud and does not make marks on the lawn. He also invented the dual cyclone vacuum cleaner. His inventions have achieved worldwide sales of more than £1 billion. But despite the success of his inventions, Mr. Dyson could find no one at home to back his efforts with cash, which is a perennial problem for British inventors. The article says:
Instead he sold licences to America and Japan".
James Dyson says:
British industry's attitude to development and designers is blighted by short-termism … You have to show a quick turn—around and immediate profit. Engineering is not about that—it's a long—term way of regenerating a company,"—
and a country.
If the City—boys and the banks… demand an instant return we just sell our products better, we don't improve them. Advertising is the British answer to everything. But that is the way to a fast buck, not real money.
Mr. Dyson went on to point out that
The best…. business is one where you can sell a product at a high price with a large margin… and make an enormous amount of money,"—
Here's to that.
For that you have to develop a product that works better and looks better than existing ones. That kind of investment is long—term, high-risk and not very British.
A third problem is that of the gap between the skills that we have and the skills that we need. Cuts in education, about which we talked yesterday, are the greatest betrayal of our young people. Throughout the country, school budgets are being cut.
We have talked about a proper career structure for scientists. I fear that the Government will put shor-term political considerations before the long-term goal of providing for Britain an adequate research base to keep our brightest brains in Britain and to maintain and improve our quality of life. The Government's strategy seems to be to cut back on investment in key services now to create enough elbow room for a cut in income tax before the next election. That is not only shor-termism but cynical shor-termism, because one person's tax cut in 1996 could result in that same person's job loss in 1998–99.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to provide some answers to the questions raised in the debate. I wish him and the Chancellor well in the task of persuading his colleagues of the importance of research in this country. If they can persuade the Government to invest more in the future, they will receive enthusiastic support from me and from my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), who, like


me, is a supporter of Swindon town football club, but I do not agree with his latter remarks. I believe that the Government's proposals this year, following, as they do, the White Paper on science and technology, show that the Government are indeed looking to a long-term future for science, and are approaching the need to avoid short-termism in a positive way.
I welcome what I hope is now an annual debate. It has been held on 2 February 1994 and on 2 February 1995.I put it to my right hon. Friend that if the next debate occurs on 2 February 1996—a Friday—we could have a five—hour instead of a two and three quarter hour debate on science.
I welcome the opportunity to say something about science, particularly the science research councils—five of the six of which are located in my constituency. They have been through a substantial sea change over the past 12 months as a result of what I believe were right decisions taken on the reorganisation of some of them. I pay tribute to the efforts made by the management and staff of the research councils in bringing those changes to fruition, working them out and making them effective, I am pleased to tell the House that, in general, things have settled down well and the research councils are now getting on with the job of administrating British science.
At the time of the White Paper's publication in 1993, and again in the debate a year ago, I asked for assurances from my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the position of staff of the research councils. Those assurances—that the changes would not lead to significant alterations in staff—were given to me and they have been kept.
However, since that time, a decision has been made to undertake a review of staffing levels in the research councils and that has led to some concern among my constituents who work at the research councils. Once again, reassurance has been offered by Sir John Cadogan in a letter to staff representatives and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply to the debate, would reiterate the reassurance that what is looked for is improvements in efficiency but not the drastic reductions in staff number that were suggested by union representatives in Swindon at the end of last year. Staff in the research councils have a strong commitment and they deserve our support. I trust that my hon. Friend will feel the same and be able to give further assurances to my constituents tonight.
I want to make brief reference to one or two of the issues that were raised at the beginning of the debate in exchanges between my right hon. Friend and several hon. Members. The reference to the international subscriptions which fall within the remit of PPARC strikes a strong chord with me. I have raised the matter on many occasions in the past in the House. I look forward to the announcement of the mechanism—in section 6 of the White Paper—to be established to protect PPARC's budget, now a little under £200 million, but more than half of it devoted to the two subscriptions to CERN and ESA.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said tonight that the fluctuations in those two subscriptions will be a first charge upon the totality of the science budget and that is obviously good news. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could tell me,

either at the end of the debate or, because I appreciate that he will have many things to do at that stage, perhaps later in a written reply, whether there will be a pro rata allocation of the £8 million between all the research councils budgets on the basis of their share of the total expenditure on science. That would mean that PPARC would still have to find about £1.5 million in addition as part of its contribution to the fluctuations element.
We welcome the improvement that has been made possible in the overall cost to Britain of the LHC at CERN. I have a figure of about £70 million over 10 or 12 years, which is a substantial sum. That money should be fed back directly into domestic programmes, which support the international projects. Again at some stage, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that he agrees with that.
Furthermore, savings are now being talked about on the administration costs of ESA. It would be helpful to know whether the intention is to recycle those to UK science in general terms or specifically to PPARC projects, so that they may be the direct beneficiaries, bearing in mind that over the years first CERN and now PPARC have had to bear the total cost of the subscriptions, which have been a large drain on their respective budgets.
The two subscriptions buy only the scientific infrastructure in those overseas locations. The real value of our membership of CERN and ESA comes from the domestic research that we then undertake and that has to be separately funded. It is not clear to me at this stage whether the allocations announced by my right hon. Friend today will provide adequate funding for the domestic science base to enable Britain to obtain full value from continuing membership of those two European projects. Again, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could clarify that point.
It was brought to my attention that ESA is concerned about the integral astronomy mission. It was made clear by my right hon. Friend that that was a matter for PPARC, but I hope that he will continue to support the belief that the UK is strong in the subject of astronomy. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made that point in an intervention. We must stress how good we are at astronomy, and the fact that we lead Europe in that subject. It is vital for PPARC to finance the mission; failure to participate would deal a serious blow to those abroad.
I welcome the general increase in funds for this year, which is above the inflation rate. It recognises the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House for more to be spent on science. I particularly welcome two projects. The first is cognitive engineering: an additional £1.2 million is to go to the Economic and Social Research Council. Interaction between humans and computers strikes me as one of the most crucial areas of advance for the country: I would hazard a guess that it will provide Nobel prizes here in years to come. Major breakthroughs may not be far away, and I am very pleased that support for cognitive engineering is continuing and increasing.
I also welcome the additional allocation of £2 million to the Natural Environment Research Council for environmental diagnostics, on which a number of hon. Members have commented. It is all very well for the Government to hit industry with the principle that the polluter pays, but it is equally right for us to give what help we can to industry to enable it to deal with such pollution problems as waste management.
I am pleased to learn that a new research council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, is to be given generous funds for a number of new projects. The council will welcome those funds, and I look forward to visiting it before long to hear more about its plans.
Finally, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has agreed to visit Swindon soon. That is an exercise organised by my hon. Friend and me— unlike the sub—plot of which we heard earlier, involving my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be very welcome in Swindon, and I hope that he will arrive there in the next couple of months to see for himself the excellent work being done in the research councils. That work is leading British science towards a future which I believe is very bright, as a result of the allocation and all that has gone before it.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I must declare an interest: I am a non-executive director of the Welding Institute, an independent research and technology organisation that will benefit from some of the new schemes announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The Chancellor has made promising sounds about real increases in the science budgets, and if we did not know the whole picture it would look very rosy. I do not want to sound sour, but I feel that the true picture of science and technology spending should be shown. Between 1986 and 1992, spending by the Office of Public Service and Science increased by 21 per cent., but in the same period spending by the Higher Education Funding Council fell by 7 per cent.; civil Departments' spending fell by 29 per cent.; Ministry of Defence spending fell by 20 per cent.; and total Government science and technology spending fell by 13 per cent. Moreover, if we take into account projected spending to 1995–96, we find that total Government expenditure has fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms in the 10 years since 1985–86.
I accept that there is a real case for cutting MOD research expenditure, but why is the money not going into civil research? Instead, civil Departments' expenditure is being cut by an even greater amount than defence research spending.
I quote from a letter I have received from the head of a science department at Cambridge university. He said:
In the USA there have been large cuts in the defence research budget but a substantial amount of these funds have been transferred to civil research, i.e. there has been a real peace dividend. In the UK there has been no peace dividend. You could ask why not. In aerospace, for example, I have been told by senior officials in the USA that not a dollar of the research budget has been lost: all the cuts in the defence aerospace budget have been transferred to the civil aerospace side. This is not a direct civil aerospace subsidy… but is a clearly constructed indirect subsidy via… joint university-industry aerospace projects, etc. In the UK, both the defence and the civil aerospace government R & D budget have been cut and hence British Aerospace, Rolls—Royce, etc., are really suffering (hence the recent Rolls-Royce redundancies in Scotland and there are more aerospace redundancies to come). The savings from defence research cuts should be transferred to the civil sector, and joint industry—university research, with the university side funded by EPSRC, would help to restore a level playing field and would help to save our aerospace industry.

Unfortunately, many British companies follow the British Government on research and defence spending. The Central Statistical Office review of industrial research in 1992 shows that funding for civil research has reached an all—time high of £7.8 billion. That is good news, but it is still only just over 1.25 per cent. of gross domestic product. France's 1.4 per cent., Germany's 1.7 per cent., the USA's 1.8 per cent. and Japan's 2.1 per cent. make British business expenditure on research and development look pathetic.
Long-term industrial competitiveness depends on our ability to use our scientific inventiveness to make new and improved products. A lead from the Government is needed to convince our industrial companies that investment in research and development is important, not only for their own competitiveness but for the future prosperity of the country.
Another head of a science department at Cambridge university has expressed concern about the way in which the Government are providing funds for industrial research and development. He wrote:
All of us here appreciate the over-riding importance of a healthy industrial base. Government needs to provide encouragement for industrial investment in research and for Universities to collaborate in the projects. So far however, most of the funds for this endeavour seem to have been produced from the Research Council budget and not from the DTI budget or the MOD budget.
It is true that the cuts in the DTI budget have meant cuts in the advanced technology programme to which the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) referred. That money has not been replaced.
It would be helpful for the independent research and technology organisations to know whether they will be able to apply for funds from the research councils. Perhaps the Minister could tell us, when he replies, whether that money will be available.
My constituents are concerned about a number of other points. I refer to the short-term goals, especially the short-termism within the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. That is a matter that comes up again and again in conversation with research scientists in my constituency.
Yet another head of a science department at Cambridge university wrote saying that he was worried about the short-term goals being pursued by the EPSRC
in contravention of the Minister's own pronouncements and of frequent warning from the House of Lords Select Committee. This is particularly annoying, as many parts of the remit of EPSRC … are involved with fundamental science just as much as the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. Yet there is a repeated confirmation of the idea that EPSRC is concerned with wealth creation and the quality of life, and fundamental science of the blue sides kind must be pursued through PPARC.
He is asking the Minister to assure the country that vigorous support for high-quality fundamental science will continue to be provided, not just by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, but by all research councils. He asks:
can the Research Councils—all of..them—be again required by the Minister to take a long-term view of such things as the applicability of research?
In the past two years, one of the changes in funding has hit Oxford university and Cambridge university, in particular, very badly. I refer to the dual support transfer system, which has been a uniform disaster for the major research universities. It was supposed to be an overall


neutral operation, solely connected with research. How the best research universities could be so badly damaged must be questioned.
I have learnt that another department is in deficit to the tune of £500,000 this year because the funding in the transfer system has not been replaced in the way that it was supposed to have been. Oxford university has compiled a dossier on the ways in which the research councils have failed to do what was required of them, and have failed to apply the funds transferred to them from funding councils to the support of specific costs associated with research grants.
Research council panels have memberships from around the country. They naturally seek to make the money go as far as possible and they are inclined to say, in particular, that the major research universities are well enough resourced anyhow, and that this or that direct-cost request can be deleted in favour of giving another research grant somewhere else. Each of the major research universities has suffered a loss of several million pounds from that, and the country should be told that the shift of funding, allegedly to make the costs of support research more transparent, has been a disaster. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I know that he recently announced a review of that system, but it is extremely important that those serious concerns are dealt with.
Difficulties are being experienced by some of the research institutes. A director of a research institute associated with crop research complains that he has already received
two letters from BBSRC in the last few months… asking how we would deal with funding cuts because the Director General of Research Councils … wants the..money for a range of short-term funding schemes.
I know that additional funding of £15 million has been announced today. That is not new money. It is coming from the fundamental and basic infrastructure of some of our best research institutes. If that is allowed to continue, it will seriously damage the research institutes because they need leading scientists, not only to find short-term contract money on which they depend, but as a basic structure for them to continue. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I shall try to be as brief as possible so that it is possible for the FrontBench spokesmen to allow further speeches in the debate. This debate is of interest to all parties. I do not regard the support for science as a matter of political controversy. After all, it is well known that we need to support science as much as possible.
In a sense, therefore, I follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) in that she referred to what has turned out to be the theme of the debate—the new concept about which we have all obviously been reading in our briefs from various sources. That theme is short-termism, a phrase which has cropped up in speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have been fascinated by the number of times reference has been made to short-termism.
I have been most encouraged by the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have also been encouraged by the fact that he

will visit Norwich on 10 February, and I know that he will enjoy that visit very much. I was encouraged by his remarks when he dealt with the problem of short-termism. Although he may need a little more pressure from those of us who are keen on scientific research, I have a feeling that he is on the right track. I was certainly very encouraged by his opening speech.
At a recent meeting of the new Council for Science and Technology, the Prime Minister said that science was at the heart of government. Of course, it was the Prime Minister who provided us with the new Office of Science and Technology, so there is no doubt about the Government's commitment to science, which I support.
We could have a lengthy debate about figures and the sums of money provided for science. The trouble with such debates is that they depend on which figures are cited. I shall not enter into that argument, but it is at least of some encouragement to me as a physicist that the Royal Society of Chemistry has given some welcome to the Government's statement on science funding. It seems that the message is getting through that we need to continue to provide substantial sums for scientific research.
I am one of those who will always want more resources for such research, and that should not be a matter of controversy. However, the mechanisms applied to funding are often controversial. Members of the Opposition Front Bench will be disappointed to learn that I shall not go into more detail because that would take too much time, but, clearly, we want more resources and the Royal Society of Chemistry has been encouraged by the Government's announcement, which is good news.
There is a tradition of pure research in this country. I remember my time at the Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge when I was struggling to get a degree in physics. Of course, that was where Rutherford and other great scientists split the atom—to use very simple terminology—using basic equipment. They had no idea that it would lead directly to such things as nuclear power. This week, Lord Wakeham came to East Anglia to start up the new Sizewell B nuclear power station. That is an example of a direct application of pure research, although originally no one had any idea to what it might lead. I pay tribute to all those in Suffolk, Norfolk and elsewhere who were involved in the Sizewell B project. It is a great success and I hope that it will run successfully after its opening this week.
The Times wrote about "1,188 MW per day", but that is wrong—The Times gets a lot wrong. Any scientists here will know that "megawatts" is power, so one refers simply to "megawatts", not "megawatts per day". In any event, it is an enormous amount of power, which will probably be good for the environment given the carbon dioxide emissions that will be prevented.
Many hon. Members have spoken about short-termism in terms of not only finance but research. I do not have time to develop that theme, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I appreciate that an important debate is going on in the background.
I especially congratulate the Government on their support for initiatives to raise public interest in science— that is good news and has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties—including the national week of science, engineering and technology. I was rather surprised that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has


delegated the guinea pig idea to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but perhaps I can find out more about it later.
Many organisations in East Anglia are involved in national science week. There are many projects in Cambridge, Suffolk and Essex, but I am disappointed to learn that there is only one project in Norfolk, unless I am out of date. I put it on record that that is not good enough and I shall be getting in touch with my constituents and others to see whether we can improve the situation. The engineering education scheme in Norwich is to be commended on its work, but I hope that we can do better in Norfolk by the time of the great event in March.
Once again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Parliamentary Secretary and their colleagues on their clear commitment to science, although, like other hon. Members, I would push them a little further and a little faster.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for squeezing their speeches and enabling me to be the last Back Bencher to speak in this debate.
I praise the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, even though he may think that that is a little odd, coming from a constituency neighbour. I praise the Government's development of national science week—an excellent initiative which needs pushing harder. In our area—that represented by the right hon. Gentleman and by me—a number of exciting projects include one involving our respective borough councils of Ellesmere Port, Wirral and Chester and the Natural Environment Research Council. Many exciting projects at Ness gardens have received a staggering response and I hope that the Minister notes the commitment there.
My disappointment is aimed not at the Government but at the private sector. I am extremely disappointed at the lack of response by some of the major science players in the private sector in relation to the Cheshire and Wirral areas. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants something to do in the next few days to promote national science week, he should get hold of private sector research laboratories and science-based companies and ask them what they are doing. Nonetheless, the House ought to congratulate the British Association for the Advancement of Science on its work to ensure the success of national science week.
Several hon. Members have referred to short-termism and relative expenditure and to whether the budget has been increased. I bring to the attention of the House the document in the Vote Office under the signature of Karel van Miert, which I found extremely interesting, although I had too little time to read it. Pages 55 and 64 draw comparisons between expenditure on science research in the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. The most staggering comparison is of the number of scientists and engineers engaged in research and development per thousand of the labour force. In the United Kingdom, it is 4.5, yet in Germany it is 6—an extraordinarily large gap. Some of the figures are extremely worrying.
The percentage of gross domestic expenditure spent on research and development financed by industry in the UK is 49.7 per cent., yet in Germany it is 59 per cent. The only area in which we seem to be ahead is in comparisons

of military expenditure. I know that that creates all sorts of confusions in the figures, but the two countries are worth comparing. They illustrate the fact that, while the right hon. Gentleman, with his specific responsibilities for science and technology, is trying to do well with a limited budget, the overall commitment of the Government and the private sector is not as good as it is in Germany, one of our key comparators. That positive message should be sent from this debate.
The documents include an bemusing reference to subsidiarity which includes the sentence:
Greater transparency in the research policies and activities of Member States would also enable individual States to develop their policies in the light of others' experience.
That is an interesting point.
Page 9 of Karel van Miert's document includes a sentence which reads:
The Union must speak with a single voice on international bodies in order to participate in worldwide programmes.
If the Government are serious in that regard, they must get their act together in terms of the way in which they conduct themselves in European affairs and, in particular, the role of their own Back Benchers.
In responding to the comments of the Select Committee on Science and Technology with regard to "Forward Look", the Chancellor included a sentence that is perhaps in line with the definition of subsidiarity to which I have referred, and I welcome it. In his letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), the Chancellor stated:
Finally, 'Realising our potential' intended that the Forward Look would open up for public scrutiny and debate the current plans and priorities for publicly-funded science, engineering and technology.
I hope that that is a conversion to the definition of subsidiarity as far as it applies to science. I hope that the Chancellor recognises that, in the spirit of this debate, which has been quite supportive of Britain's need to develop a proper science policy, there is still room for improvement in some areas.
With regard to comparisons with other European countries, one obviously comes very rapidly to the issue of short-termism. It is important to consider the figures and then stand back and say, "Well, it is not really solely the responsibility of the banks and the financial institutions. If the infrastructure of support for science and research and development from the Government is not there, is it reasonable for the banks and financial institutions to take more than a short-term view?" Such issues must be part of a jigsaw. All the parts must be brought together and we will then see the explosion that we would all welcome.
I will conclude my rapid run through what was going to be a lengthy speech by referring to defence expenditure. Clearly, some of the important areas of research conducted under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence will result in potential for activities in the civilian sector. We should encourage the whole principle of diversification.
I challenge the Chancellor to look very carefully at page 17 of the Select Committee's second report. He should consider the exchange between his predecessor and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who is not renowned for being a left winger on the Select Committee. The Chancellor will see from the language of


that exchange that his predecessor was extremely muddled about the relationship between the Office of Science and Technology and the MOD.
There must be clarity because, without it, we will not have a structured transition from areas of research expertise in the MOD which could, in the post cold-war era, translate into civilian activities. That needs a carefully thought-out strategy, and I hope that, in the months and years to come, the Government—it will not be the present Government in the years to come—will engage in that debate seriously. That will give us the potential to release moneys to allow us to get on to the same league table as the Germans. Together with other constructive changes, that will create an initiative that will move the private sector and the financial institutions in parallel and help us to generate a science base in the interests of Great Britain plc in the longer term.

Mr. John Battle: This brief, but important, debate has proved to be more of a Government statement on the allocation of funding for science than anything else. Science has suffered some neglect in the House since the Science and Technology Act 1965 aroused such great interest, and we all ought to welcome the fact that it is moving up the political agenda.
This is not the annual debate on science—we have that to come on "Forward Look"—but we do need an overall debate on the Government's budgets for research and development and future policy. Part of the frustration of hon. Members taking part in the debate this evening has been caused by the lack of time, and let us hope that more hon. Members join in when we have a full debate.
Although the emphasis of this debate has been on the science Budget, we must keep the debate in the context of the Government's overall spending, and I hope to refer to that during my brief remarks. A briefing based on "Forward Look" figures which I received from the Library on 1 December after the November Budget stated:
The 1994–5 total Government spending on science and technology was planned to be £6,106.5 million… This was lower than the estimate for 1993–4 by some £160.3 million… As you suspected this planned reduction in last year's plans, last year, is greater in size than the increase in the science budget announced in the budget statement.
In other words, the science budget has effectively been undermined by other Departments' spending cuts. The Chancellor of the Duchy may claim to be holding his science budget, but it has been dramatically undermined by falls in departmental spending elsewhere. Departmental spending equals only 63 per cent. of the Government's total spending for science.
The Government's record is not good. Publicly funded research and development fell from 43 per cent. of the UK total in 1989 to 35 per cent. in 1992. In 1992, the UK spent 2.12 per cent. of GDP on research and development—lower than Japan, America, France and Germany. Hon. Members have referred to the dramatic reduction in civil expenditure, which is mostly attributable to the Department of Trade and Industry.
DTI expenditure, has fallen in real terms from £900 million in 1984–85 to £245 million in 1994–95, and it is planned to go down further to £237.5 million in 1996–97.

The DTI has withdrawn its joint programmes with what was formerly the Science and Engineering Research Council. The Department ended the advance technology programmes in high temperature superconductivity research. DTI money was lost from the joint framework for information technology, and from the advanced manufacturing technology committee's research into advanced robotics and computer-aided engineering. Even the smaller scale computer-integrated manufacturing was chopped by the DTI.
I put it to the Chancellor that that cannot be helpful when he is trying to co-ordinate a Government-wide strategy. There is a distinct lack of enthusiasm from the President of the Board of Trade; indeed, on the very day in June 1993 when the Chancellor's predecessor was launching the White Paper on science, the President of the Board of Trade ended the DTI's collaborative research programmes, and effectively withdrew the joint funding programmes with what was then SERC. It was a loss of an estimated £40 million, which the Government withdrew from science support. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in his reply, and tell us how much has been lost from research programmes that were jointly funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and the research councils. Is it not about £40 million, which would wipe out any claimed increase in the support for the science base?
Will the Office of Science and Technology, via the research councils, be the main source of all Government funding for the support of research in industry and elsewhere? Will the OST guarantee to replace what has been lost by reductions in other Departments?
As we all know, it is not merely a case of reductions in the Department of Trade and Industry. That same downward trend, although less marked, is evident in other Government Departments. They are all forecasting reductions in expenditure for 1996–97 of between 8 and 17 per cent., compared with 1992–93. The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are forecasting reductions. The Department of Transport is forecasting a £2.5 million cut in expenditure on engineering policy by the end of this financial year, compared with 1992–93. That cannot contribute to an integrated, co-ordinated departmental policy.
We need a strategy of interdepartmental thinking and action from the Government—some transdepartmental action and co-ordination, so that there is a thrust for a science policy throughout all Government Departments.
We have heard international comparisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked whether the private sector would fill the gap. Paragraph 3.2 of "Forward Look" states:
with private sector contributions growing commensurately.
That implies that if the Government withdrew support, it would be matched by the private sector, but that is not happening. In 1991, British companies funded only 69 per cent. of their research, which is a lower proportion than in any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, bar France. Research and development by British industry is a lower percentage of the gross domestic product than that of our competitors and we are losing ground. Employment in industrial research fell by 46,000 between 1986 and 1992.
As Dr. John Mulvey said in a letter in Physics World in August 1994:
Compared to Germany and Japan, where expenditure by industry per head of the labour force is at least twice the UK level, the gap has widened to nearly 1 per cent. of GDP or about £6 billion per year. It is indeed asking rather a lot of the science base to compensate for this enormous deficit by providing better value for money.
In September, the Prime Minister promised the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee:
Despite the absolute necessity of restraining public expenditure we expect spending on the science base to rise in real terms next year and science will remain a high priority in future.
There seems to have been a decline in real terms even in this year's figure. It seems to be up £13.9 million, but with inflation at 2.4 per cent., it ought to have increased by £28.9 million. On page 2 of the Minister's press release, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council claims that the budget has increased by £4.5 million, but compared with last year's figures, it has been reduced by £10.2 million from £171.8 million. Perhaps the Minister can explain that. Obviously, tonight we are discussing not new money but the earmarking and sharing out of a fragment—5 per cent.—of the science budget.
It is good to see that the underpinning of strategic science is underlined in the report and we wholeheartedly welcome that. I was especially glad to see the reference to work on protein structure, which is to be supported. We all remember the observations of Sir John Kendrew, when he was speaking of his early work at Cambridge with Max Perutz, which led to the first identification of a protein structure. He said that they had achieved no results in more than 10 years of research and that experts claimed that they were doomed to fail. The message is clear to all of us: we should support the science base.
Let us not get the debate out of perspective. The Government have spent nearly a quarter of a million pounds simply on the citizens charter for British Rail. That sum is equivalent to what they spent this year on the public understanding of science. Is science a real priority when the Government spend £208 million simply to advertise the sale of British Rail? We are forced to ask whether the Government have put science, and spending on the science base, at the heart of their agenda. Savings could be made elsewhere and that money spent on the science base.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service..and..Science..(Mr...Robert..G...Hughes): I enormously welcomed the eight Back-Bench contributions to the debate. I welcomed not necessarily their content but the fact that so many hon. Members wanted to take part in this important debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may be disappointed to know that, although I have agreed to become a guinea pig in the Megalab 95 competition, I stipulated that testing should be non—destructive. I should add that it was not my idea but that of Roger Highfield, who did not ask me but just put my name in print. But I am happy to go along with it.
Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, concentrated on money. Although it is important to discuss every aspect of Government research and development programmes, hon. Members must be patient

and wait for the publication of "Forward Look", in which the Government will detail where we are going, what we want to do, the sums that will be spent and the process by which we have reached those conclusions. "Forward Look" is the largest explanation that a British Government have ever given about what they seek to do, so it is yet another example of the open government policies for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way just this once, in affection to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Battle: It might be in affection, but I should prefer a guarantee from the Minister that the Government will set aside time for a full day's debate on "Forward Look" in June or July.

Mr. Hughes: That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who represents the Patronage Secretary, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request and will no doubt report it in the right places.
We have heard a few Jeremiahs in the debate. The speech by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was somewhat lugubrious. I do not know what makes him happy, but today's science budget should have done so because it has been maintained at a record level. I remind hon. Members that, in real terms, it is 30 per cent. above its value in 1979–80 and that the revision of the GDP deflator—the accurate forecast of what the money is worth—has increased the value of this year's science budget by about 2 per cent. That is good news.
We can all bandy figures about. If one is in Opposition—I have served in opposition on councils— one tries to find the worst figures, while if one is in Government or in charge, one tries to find the best figures. Let us not forget that the UK is an average spender among G7 nations. Government funding for research and development in the UK is higher than in Japan, Italy and Canada and our spending on high-technology industries stands up well to international comparison. So we are doing well by international standards and this year's figure for the basic science budget, which is, after all, the subject of tonight's debate, stands up extremely well. The figure for total Government spending on research and development will be contained in "Forward Look".
At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) spoke about environmental protection. I am glad that she did so because this is a tremendous opportunity. If we are to have high environmental standards, it is vital that they be science– based. A distinct fear came through from the research councils, scientists and industrialists that much of what they were being asked to do was not based firmly enough on good science. The money that we are making available will ensure that it is based on good science. That is good for all of us—it is good for the economy, the country, industrialists and the environment. If we are to lay down a strict regime, it is important that it should be the right regime and that we do not think, in a few years' time, that if only we had had better science, we could have done a better job. I look forward to the results.
Hon. Members suggested that there had been a secret carve-up. But the Director General of Research Councils has consulted widely. He has had extensive discussions


with all the research council chief executives. He consulted more than 300 science practitioners before he reached the recommendations that he made to my right hon. Friend and me. Of course, my right hon. Friend listened carefully to what people said to him when he visited the universities.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hughes: If I give way to the hon. Lady I shall not even reach the points that she made in her speech. I normally give way when hon. Members ask me, but I think it will be more courteous to answer as many questions as I can.
Sir John Cadogan, the Director General of Research Councils, is a civil servant and it has not been the practice to publish the advice of civil servants to Ministers under any Government. We are at pains to say that plans will be published in the allocation booklet announcing the basis on which we arrived at the decisions that we took.
Several hon. Members spoke about short-term contracts for researchers. That is an important point and the research councils, with the OST, are developing a concordat on contract researchers. They will soon be discussing it with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which represents the universities and the employers of contract staff. New initiatives have been introduced and the Royal Society has increased the number of long—term personal fellowships. Warwick university has introduced 50 six-year fellowships.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), the Chairman of the Select Committee, mentioned ROPA. I am glad that he did so as I think that ROPA answers the question raised by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones)—on behalf of the Liberal party— and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), on behalf of the Labour party, about blue skies research. I do not mind if the Labour party calls it red dawn research—we know what we mean. We mean research that has no direct industrial application at the time—not making widgets for industry and not necessarily knowing what one will get out of the research. That is precisely what the ROPA scheme does.
We should remind ourselves of the success of ROPA. Some 239 awards worth £5 million have been made in the past year and the scheme has been viewed favourably. We had to find extra money in the existing year and, together with the figures announced by my right hon. Friend, the money will be spread across all the research councils.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey spoke of the European Community money and receipts. The science research councils received£12 million from the European Community in 1994–1995 and none of it is deducted from the science provision. I commend to the House a piece that appeared in the current edition of Director magazine. Michael Kenward, former editor of the New Scientist, said that £9.6 billion over the next four years would be spent on the fourth framework programme. He kindly says that, because of the negotiations that we carried out, the figure accurately reflects the United Kingdom's competence in a number of sectors. He says that it gives United Kingdom companies a distinct edge over their European competitors when meeting the European Union's needs. We received more than our just returns on the third framework, and I am confident that British industry and academics will take up the challenge and do at least as well this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who is the host Member of Parliament for most of the research councils—I look forward to visiting them with him—sought an assurance that we are looking for efficiency and not drastic cuts. I am happy to be able to give him that assurance. We are not pursuing job cuts for their own sake and we are committed to ensuring that as much of the science budget as possible goes into science. I think that the whole House will welcome that.
We do not want money to go to administration; we want it to go to the sharp end for good scientific research. It is the Government's duty to ensure that the research councils remain fit to fulfil their future purpose and we remain committed to that duty. The hon. Member for Cambridge asked whether independent research organisations can apply for grants. I will get back to the hon. Lady on that point—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Patricia Anne Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

10 pm

Sir Giles Shaw: It is with considerable regret that I bring this particularly tragic case to the Floor of the House. I am most grateful that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is in his place to respond to it.
Mrs. Patricia Hall lived with her husband, Keith, at 11 Moorland drive in Pudsey and was thus a constituent of mine. She has not been seen by anyone since Sunday 27 January 1992. The inquiry into her disappearance was led by Superintendents Stainthorpe and Hudson of the West Yorkshire police, who were stationed at Pudsey, and the evidence uncovered led to Mrs. Hall's husband, Keith, being arrested, charged and tried for the murder of his wife.
His trial lasted nine days and he was acquitted by a majority verdict of 10 to two almost one year ago. This is not the place to go into the detail of the trial; suffice to say that the main prosecution evidence rested upon a tape-recorded confession obtained by an undercover WPC, which was subsequently ruled inadmissible and unreliable by the trial judge.
However, in response to an application by Gilbert Gray QC, the judge allowed the transcript of the tape recording to be published. The case of Patricia Anne Hall and the surprising conclusion of the trial has become very much a matter of public concern and interest, both locally and nationally. With the acquittal of the accused, the incidents which gave rise to the alleged death of Mrs. Patricia Hall have not been proven to a point where her death might be formally recognised and so registered.
On the other hand, although the taped evidence was declared inadmissible as the basis for prosecution at a murder trial, it is possible that incidental information contained in the transcript which was published may provide circumstantial evidence to a coroner.
It is against that background that both the west Yorkshire coroner in post at that time and his successor, Mr. David Hinchliffe, the current coroner, considered that an application to the Home Office for an inquest to be held under section 15 of the Coroners Act 1988 should be made. As I understand it, section 15 of the 1988 Act permits the Home Secretary to direct an inquest to be opened to permit registration of death to take place under certain specific circumstances. It states:
Where a coroner has reason to believe—

(a) that a death has occurred in or near his district in such circumstances that an inquest ought to be held; and
(b) that owing to the destruction of the body by fire or otherwise, or to the fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered, an inquest cannot be held except in pursuance of this section … he may report the facts to the Secretary of State".


This application was made by the west Yorkshire coroner on 7 April last year. The reply from the Home Office dated 22 July stated that the Home Secretary had decided not to direct an inquest under section 15 of the Act. The main reason was that any finding as to the cause of death, which section 16 requires, could not be inconsistent with the outcome of the criminal proceedings. He stated that it would be intolerable if any finding of an inquest should

state that Mrs. Hall was "murdered by her husband" when he had been acquitted of that charge in criminal proceedings. Moreover, the Home Secretary did not think that there was a public interest matter at stake here.
On 31 August, the coroner wrote to the Home Secretary again enclosing a further copy of the transcript and renewing his request for direction under section 15. In October, the Home Office asked the coroner for further information to show that he had reason to believe that a death had occurred. A mere disappearance of a person would not be regarded as sufficient.
In particular, the Home Office stated that more evidence must have been laid before the Crown court independent of the confession, to establish the death of Patricia Anne Hall. As a consequence of the coroner's application to the Home Office, I became involved by receiving requests from relatives and other concerned constituents to support the coroner in his endeavours to hold an inquest.
If such an inquest were held, it could determine for registration purposes that Patricia Anne Hall was dead. The family might then with dignity draw a line through their grievous uncertainty. Moreover, I believed that the case had aroused substantial public interest and that that should be taken into account—supported by a strong local press campaign that an inquest was desirable.
To fulfil the Home Office request for evidence outwith the transcript, the coroner requested West Yorkshire police to provide such evidence that they could obtain that Patricia Anne Hall had died. Senior investigating officers of West Yorkshire police provided a report to the coroner dated 10 November 1994, which sought to meet his request. It concluded:
In the light of all the evidence gathered it remains the unanimous view of the inquiry team that Mrs. Hall was killed at 11 Moorland Drive, Pudsey, on Monday 27 January 1992.
Accordingly, the coroner wrote to the Home Office on 21 November setting out the revised evidence that, in his view, would support the case for a section 15 application. He concluded with this summary:


"(i) The enclosed report from West Yorkshire Police demonstrates the likelihood that Mrs. Hall is dead.
(ii) Mrs. Hall's home address, which is the place where she likely met her death, is within my jurisdiction.
(iii) The enclosed report from West Yorkshire Police refers to the likely circumstances of the destruction of the body.
(iv) I refer to my previous correspondence regarding my concern for an inquest to be held, which is stated in detail in my letter of the 7th April 1994."


I wrote to the Home Secretary in support of thait application, and I consider that it would be in the best interests of all parties that such an inquest should be held. An inquest could determine, for registration purposes, that Patricia Anne Hall is dead. An inquest would provide substantial relief to Mrs. Hall's relatives and might enable a settlement of her affairs. It would also meet substantial public interest supported by a strong local press campaign and, above all, would allow the coroner to discharge his perceived duty.
As yet, there has been no reply from the Home Secretary on that matter. It is time that such a reply was made, and that is why I applied to Madam Speaker for this Adjournment debate.
I recognise that that request has caused—and probably is causing—difficult legal issues to be raised within the Home Office. The jurisdiction of a coroner is somewhat


constrained. Although the acquittal of the man accused of murdering Mrs. Hall has already determined that particular line of inquiry, it does not seem to me impossible that a coroner's verdict could be arrived at which in no way either involves the taped admission itself—deemed unreliable and inadmissible by the trial judge—or conflicts with the verdict of the higher court. It seems to me that a verdict such as "killed unlawfully" or an open verdict would certainly not conflict with the Crown court. The cause of death could be described in medical terms as "unascertainable". It also seems to me that the Home Secretary has received sufficient additional evidence to demonstrate the likelihood that Mrs. Hall is dead, and there is no doubt that if that evidence is accepted the death clearly occurred within the west Yorkshire coroner's jurisdiction. The report from the West Yorkshire police team indicates the likely circumstances of the disposal and subsequent destruction of the body and shows that such actions would have been practicable.
I deduce from that, therefore, that all the requirements of the coroner by the correspondence with the Home Office and the answers to all the questions that it set down for elucidation before arriving at its decision have now been fully and fairly delivered and that the answers should enable the Home Office to make a recommendation to the Home Secretary that a direction be issued under section 15 of the Coroners Act.
I said at the outset that this is a tragedy—for the family and for the Pudsey community. It should be brought to a fair and final conclusion.
I therefore think it right to ask my hon. Friend, who is responding to the debate on behalf of the Home Secretary, to accept that he has a duty to allow the west Yorkshire coroner to proceed to an inquest, which would be the proper fulfilment of his professional duty to the public whom he serves with distinction. It would also bring one element of justice, so far denied to the devastated family of Patricia Anne Hall.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) for raising this important and tragic case and I pay tribute to the zeal and persistence with which he has pursued it over several months. It is a case that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have considered extremely carefully, because we recognise its importance to the family of Patricia Anne Hall.
Inquests in England and Wales are conducted in accordance with the Coroners Act 1988 and the coroners rules 1984. Coroners are appointed to investigate sudden or unexplained deaths, in the general interest of the community. Their duty to hold an inquest is triggered when a report is made to them that the body of a deceased person is lying within their district and that there is reasonable cause to believe that he or she has died a violent or unnatural death, a sudden death of unknown cause or has died in custody.
What happens if the coroner has reason to believe that a death has occurred in his district in such circumstances that an inquest should be held, but the body has been destroyed or cannot be recovered? That is what the

coroner believes in this case. This situation is catered for by section 15 of the Coroners Act, which provides that, in such circumstances, the coroner may report the facts to the Secretary of State, who may, if he considers it desirable to do so, direct either the coroner or another one to hold an inquest into the death.
The disappearance of Patricia Anne Hall was reported to the police by her husband, Keith Hall, on 27 January 1992. No body has ever been found, but, following police investigations, Keith Hall was charged with his wife's murder. During those investigations, Mr. Hall admitted to an undercover policewoman that he had strangled his wife and disposed of her body in an incinerator.
That admission was tape-recorded by the police officer. In the course of a preliminary hearing at the trial, the judge ruled that the taped confession was inadmissible in evidence, as the circumstances in which it was made rendered it potentially unreliable. On 10 March 1994, after hearing the rest of the evidence, the jury acquitted Mr. Hall of his wife's murder. It was part of his case that his wife might still be alive.
Following the trial, on 16 March 1994, Her Majesty's coroner for the eastern district of west Yorkshire reported to the Secretary of State his belief that the death of Patricia Anne Hall had occurred in his district, in such circumstances that an inquest should be held and that owing to the destruction of the body by fire an inquest could not be held except in pursuance of section 15 of the Coroners Act. The application was carefully considered by Home Office officials, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
A decision was taken, at official level, not to direct the holding of an inquest and that decision was communicated to the coroner in a letter of 22 July 1994. In that letter it was pointed out that, if the inquest had been opened and adjourned to await the outcome of criminal proceedings, as would probably have happened had Mrs. Hall's body been found before her husband's trial, section 16(7) of the Coroners Act would have required that the finding of the inquest as to the cause of death should not be inconsistent with the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
The view was taken that the same principle must apply to an inquest opened only after the criminal proceedings had been concluded, and that it would have been intolerable if the finding of the inquest had effectively been—although not of course couched in those specific terms—that Mrs. Hall had been murdered by her husband when he had been acquitted of that charge in criminal proceedings.
On 31 August 1994 and 21 November 1994, the coroner wrote asking for the matter to be reconsidered. During the same period, my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made representations about the case. Those developments prompted us to look into its implications again. Further legal advice was sought on a number of points and I now propose to outline the major factors that we took into consideration.
I should say straight away that both my right hon. and learned Friend and I can well understand, and have every sympathy with, the desire of Mrs. Hall's family to obtain an official pronouncement of her death, in order not only to be able to register the death and complete their grieving


but also, on a more practical level, to sort out her estate. We have also considered all the matters urged on us by the coroner.
As the hon. Member for Pudsey has made clear, one of the matters most strongly urged was that to which I have just referred: the need of the family and the local community to establish that Mrs. Hall is dead and not just a missing person. However, I am advised that that is not what an inquest is for. The general purpose of an inquest is to ensure that sudden deaths are publicly investigated. The specific purposes of an inquest, as stated in rule 36 of the coroners rules, are to ascertain who the deceased was and how, when and where he came by his death. Of course it is necessary, to trigger section 15, for the coroner to believe that a person is dead, and in this case the coroner has made it quite clear that he believes that Mrs. Hall is dead. But it would not be right for my right hon. and learned Friend to exercise his discretion under section 15 for the purpose of simply establishing the fact of her death rather than for the normal purposes of an inquest, which, as I have said, are to determine how, when and where the death occurred.
There is also the possibility of the inquest verdict being inconsistent with the verdict at the trial. That, as I have said, is an aspect on which the Home Office letter of 22 July 1994 to the coroner concentrated.
Having taken further legal advice on this point, we feel that a verdict at an inquest of unlawful killing would not be inconsistent with an acquittal in a criminal trial in every case, as the coroners rules preclude a coroner from naming the person whom he believes to have committed the unlawful killing. However, a verdict of unlawful killing in this instance could contemplate no one but Mr. Hall, since, as we understand it, the wide–ranging and thorough investigations of the police produced no evidence whatsoever to implicate anyone else. Furthermore, the fact that section 16 of the Coroners Act envisages that an inquest once adjourned might not be resumed—in part because all the facts have been ventilated at a criminal trial—is a factor to be weighed in the balance. In considering the desirability of an inquest, account should also be taken of the spirit of the "no inconsistency provisions" of section 16(7).
Another important question that we have had to address is the difficulty of the coroner admitting in evidence at the inquest the disputed tape-recorded confession. A High Court judge has ruled it inadmissible in criminal proceedings. It would, of course, be a matter for a coroner to consider questions of admissibility in accordance with the law, but we are concerned at the possibility of such evidence being admitted at a coroner's inquisition, where

safeguards built into the criminal process do not apply. We have also given weight to the fact that there has already been a trial lasting nine days at which all the relevant evidence was ventilated, and which led to the acquittal of the person before the court. We have also considered the undesirability of the same issues being subjected to a second judicial process.
The coroner's reasons for wishing to hold an inquest, and the representations received in support of one from my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey and for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Leeds, West have been looked at very carefully, but having considered all the circumstances of the case my right hon. and learned Friend has concluded that it would not be desirable to direct that an inquest be held in this case. He has had particular regard to the consequence of not holding an inquest—the practical difficulty facing Mrs. Hall's family in that they are currently unable to obtain an official pronouncement of her death or to register her death. But this factor does not, in the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend, outweigh the general undesirability of directing an inquest in the circumstances of the case.
I realise that this is a most unwelcome result for the family. My right hon. and learned Friend and I greatly regret the distress that this decision may cause them.

Sir Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak again as my hon. Friend the Minister has allowed time for me to do so.
It goes without saying that what my hon. Friend has now announced as the decision of the Home Secretary— that he will not proceed to direct an inquest—will be received with very great distress indeed. He has, however, made it clear that substantial legal arguments have led to that decision.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister to know that it seems to me to be desirable to allow the coroner for west Yorkshire to examine with care the statement that my hon. Friend has made in giving the decision on this matter. Should he then believe that it is desirable to ensure that he fully understands the reasoning that has now been adduced in this matter, I might apply to my hon. Friend to visit the Home Office for further discussion. I recognise that it would not be easy, if not impossible, to overturn a decision that has been many months overdue, but it might help to determine precisely why, in legal terms, the Home Secretary has arrived at this decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty—six minutes past Ten o 'clock.